Quigg, 820 F.2d 665, 669 (4th Cir.1987)). The parties to the First Avoidance Motion and the Second Avoidance Motion are identical — the Debtors and the Mclnnises. In the Second Avoidance Motion, the Debtors are seeking to avoid the Judicial Lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). That pleading duplicates one of the causes of action presented in the First Avoidance Motion. The second and third elements of claim preclusion are easily satisfied, so the court will focus on whether the Avoidance Order is a final judgment on the merits, thereby barring litigation of the Second Avoidance Motion. a. An order regarding a motion to avoid lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) is considered a “final order” which can be appealed. E.g., Ramos v. Ortiz Negron (In re Ramos), 498 B.R. 401, 403 (1st Cir. BAP 2013) (<HOLDING>); see also Davis v. Davis (In re Davis), 314
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 does not leave anything open for subsequent determination holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable because it does not fall into one of the enumerated categories of section 143330 and such order does not finally determine anything holding that an order denying a  522f motion is final because it ends the litigation on the merits