or a dependent of the Debtor to the extent that the lien impairs an exemption to which the Debtor otherwise would be entitled. The Debtors selected the Federal Exemptions under § 522(d). The Bankruptcy Code does not define “purchase money security interest”, therefore, we must look to state law. See Roberts Furniture Co. v. Pierce (In re Manuel), 507 F.2d 990, 992 (5th Cir.1975). Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 9.107 (Vernon Supp.1989) defines a purchase money security interest as follows: A security interest is a “purchase money security interest” to the extent that it is (1) taken or retained by the seller of the collateral to secure all or part of its price; or (2) taken by a person who by making advances or incurring an obligation gives value t lin), 75 B.R. 268 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1986) (<HOLDING>); In re Faughn, 69 B.R. 18 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.1986)
holding that in georgia pursuant to  9107 of the ucc refinancing of a promissory note transforms the obligation thereby destroying purchase money nature of the security interest therefore the creditor lost its purchase money security interest pmsi in a television set when the loans were consolidated and lien was avoidable id 89 br 264 18 bcd 58 holding that under colorado law refinancing of a purchase money loan whereby an old note and security agreement were canceled and replaced by a new note and security agreement did not automatically extinguish the creditors pmsi in the debtors furniture the parties did not intend the new note to extinguish the original debt and security interest in that identical collateral remained almost no new money was advanced and the document specifically stated an intent to continue the pmsi 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 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 under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes