v. Hunter (In re Walter), 45 F.3d 1023, 1030 (6th Cir.1995) (“Where a statutory lien is created by federal law ... the characteristics of a bona; fide purchaser will ... be determined by federal law.”); see generally Griffith v. United States (In re Griffith), 206 F.3d 1389, 1392 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc) (“In interpreting the language of a statute, we generally give the words used their ordinary meaning.” (quoting Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 108, 111 S.Ct. 461, 465, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The common, ordinary meaning of a “bona fi Inc. v. Fink, 522 U.S. 211, 118 S.Ct. 651, 139 L.Ed.2d 571 (1998); see also Corn Exch. Trust Co. v. Klauder (In re Corn Exch. Nat’l Trust Co.), 318 U.S. 434, 436-37, 63 S.Ct. 679, 681, 87 L.Ed. 884 (1943) (<HOLDING>). The Hedricks’ home is in Georgia, so the law
holding that state law determines when perfection occurs for purposes of the preference avoidance provision of the bankruptcy code holding that state law determines when an interest is perfected when interpreting the preference avoidance provision of the bankruptcy act holding that pullman abstention should not be invoked to avoid interpreting state law constitutional questions when the provision of the state constitution at issue mirrors a provision of the federal constitution holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises