Your search (1) the identical issue raised was previously decided in a prior adjudication; (2) a final judgment on the merits was issued in the prior adjudication; (3) the party against whom the plea is now asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is now asserted was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.” Adams, ¶ 9. 5 Both res judicata and collateral estoppel require the issuance of a “final judgment” on the merits. The threshold question raised by Glennie's motion is whether the Water Court's issuance of an order adopting a master's report during the TPD proceedings qualifies as a final judgment on the merits. If the TPD proceedings are not a final judgment on the merits, both res judicata and collateral estoppel fail because all elements must be present under each theory. The proceedings Glennie relies on for its common law claim and issue preclusions arguments involved resolution of issues at the TPD stage of the adjudication. The Water Court has not issued a final decree for Basin and no one appealed the issues decided in the TPD proceedings for these claims. Until the Water Court issues a final decree, all Water Court orders for claims in the basin are interlocutory. In re Adjudication of Sage Creek Drainage Area, Mont. 2P.2d ( In re Horvath, (1)(c), MCA, even if Daniel DeBuff and Harold DeBuff were persons in privity, the matters addressed in the TPD proceeding do not preclude Daniel DeBuff from objecting to the Glennie claims in the preliminary decree. did not match any document.