Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Collateral estoppel thus applies when an identical issue was determined in a prior litigation between the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted and a different party from the one asserting collateral estoppel in the subsequent litiga tion. The Debtors and Mclnnis were both parties to the First Avoidance Motion and the Second Avoidance Motion; therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is misplaced, and any issue preclusion between them is encompassed by claim preclusion. Doctrine of Laches Rarely Prohibits § 522 Avoidance Motions 21. The court already determined that the.Second Avoidance Motion is barred by the doctrine of res judicat 1982) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION 22. An order either allowing or
holding that creditors rights are subject to any qualifying or contrary provisions of the bankruptcy code holding that under georgia law a creditors refinancing of a promissory note destroyed the purchase money nature of the creditors security interest in a wall unit which served as collateral holding that absent showing that a creditors position was materially and detrimentally altered laches does not apply and the fresh start policy embodied in the exemptions granted debtors by the code outweighs any interest in finality which creditors might have holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel recognizing under analogous section of california code that the right to recover property conveyed by a decedent in fraud of creditors is an asset of his insolvent estate and that the executor or administrator is a trustee thereof for the benefit of creditors