Judgment Claim on Remand We now turn to how the trial court should proceed on Monsanto’s declaratory judgment claim on remand. Because the substantive nature of the genuine issues of material fact in Monsanto’s declaratory judgment claim are essentially the same as the substantive nature of the genuine issues of material fact in two of Garst’s breach of contract counterclaims (Counts I and II), on remand Monsanto can assert the issues sought to be declared in its declaratory judgment claim in defense of Counts I and II. As a result, Monsanto has an adequate remedy at law and it cannot maintain its declaratory judgment action on remand. See Preferred Physicians Mutual Management Group, Inc. v. Preferred Physicians Mutual Risk Retention Group, 916 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Mo.App. W.D.1995) (<HOLDING>); Moschenross v. St. Louis County, 188 S.W.3d
holding that the appellant had an adequate remedy by appeal for his discovery violation allegations holding a plaintiff cannot assert a violation of the ecoa as an affirmative defense holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that an adequate remedy exists if the plaintiff could assert the issues sought to be declared as a defense in an action brought by the defendant