81 F.3d 1310, 1314-15 (4th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). The rules of res judicata “apply to the decisions of bankruptcy courts.” Turshen v. Chapman, 823 F.2d 836, 839 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 334, 86 S.Ct. 467, 475, 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966)). Claim preclusion occurs when the following three conditions are satisfied: 1) the prior judgment was final and on the merits, [sic] and rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of due process; 2) the parties are identical, or in privity, in the two actions; and 3) the claims in the second matter are based upon the same cause of action involved in the earlier proceeding. Varat, 81 F.3d at 1315 (citing Kenny v 904 (Table), 2004 WL 1950423 at *2 (10th Cir. BAP Aug. 26, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Ostensibly, all the conditions for res
holding that an order by the trial court remanding the cause to the agency to impose a sanction other than the one imposed by the agency was not a final and appealable order because it did not terminate the litigation between the parties on the merits holding that an order denying a  522f motion is final because it does not leave anything open for subsequent determination holding that where an adversary proceeding continues the order  is no more a final decision than an order denying summary judgment or denying a request for additional discovery the litigation proceeds and the issue will be reviewed if it turns out to make a difference to an order that is independently appealable recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment holding that an order denying a  522f motion is final because it ends the litigation on the merits