money to the Debtors for the purchase of the piano and the stereo, the second loan was valued to enable the Debtors to pay off the first loan to receive cash and to pay insurance charges. Id. at 800. The Court cited with approval In re Jones, 5 B.R. 655 (Bankr.M.D.N.C.1980). In Jones, the Bankruptcy Judge stated: “The purpose of the renewal note was to payoff (sic) the original note, an antecedent debt. The purchase money character of the security interest was extinguished when the proceeds from the first renewal note were used to satisfy the original note.” Id. at 657. The Circuits are split on the issue. Agreeing with Matthews, supra, are courts from the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits. See, e.g., Dominion Bank of Cumberland's, N.A. v. Nuckolls, 780 F.2d 408 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Hipps v. Landmark Financial Services of
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 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 security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest holding that the trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court holding that under virginia law a banks security interest which secured a loan made to refinance preexisting debt was a nonpossessory nonpurchasemoney security interest