of them has changed, and they are not entitled to re-characterize their theory or ground for relief once a final judgment on the merits has been entered on the first claim. Stadium Bank, 589 S.W.2d at 342. The only remaining issue is whether a final judgment on the merits was entered in the first matter. It was. Summary judgment is always a judgment on the merits. St Louis Univ. v. Hesselberg Drug Co., 35 S.W.3d 451, 455 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (“[C]ourts have held that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for collateral estoppel purposes.”); Williams v. Rape, 990 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (“Since summary judgment is a determination on the merits, res judicata principles do apply to bar [the plaintiffs’] claims.”); Meyer v. Enoch, 807 S.W.2d 156, 159 (Mo.App. E.D.1991) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 19
holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes