agreement between the parties was labeled a “layaway agreement”); Conn. Bank & Trust Co. v. Schidelman (In re Bosson), 432 F.Supp. 1013, 1021 (D.Conn.1977) (stating that contractual language providing that title remains with seller until all car payments are made merely creates a security interest); Rome Family, 407 B.R. at 75 (“[PJursuant to § 2-401, title passes to the buyer upon delivery of the goods, and the seller’s interest is limited to a reservation of a security interest, notwithstanding any contractual agreement between the parties that the seller will retain title.”); Payne, 2006 WL 3524442, at *1 (limiting the seller’s interest in the car to a security interest even though the seller’s name appeared on the vehicle’s certifícate of title); Riddle Farm, 2004 WL 3510119, at *2 (<HOLDING>); Pro Page Partners, LLC v. Message Express
holding that even if an agreement that title would pass once financing was obtained the most a creditor could claim was a security interest once the good was delivered holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement holding that the intent to create a security interest in afteracquired property must be ascertained and judged by the language of the security agreement not the financing statement holding courts must look to the law of the state in which the security interest was created to determine if creditor retains a purchase money security interest despite refinancing holding that after delivery under a sale agreement even if the parties intended that title would not pass until the other documents were completed and signed   retention of title would only have given the creditor a security interest