as an exercise of state power over property of the United States. See Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 177 (9th Cir.1979) (“No basis in law exists for treating mortgage interests of federal instru-mentalities differently from other property of the United States.”). Section 1825(b)(2) of FIRREA incorporates the principles laid out in New Brunswick. The statute “represents the express will of Congress that the FDIC must consent to any deprivation of property initiated by a state.” FDIC v. Lee, 130 F.3d 1139, 1143 (5th Cir.1997); Trembling Prairie Land Co. v. Verspoor, 145 F.3d 686, 691 (5th Cir.1998). A lien held by the FDIC as mortgagee is “property” within the meaning of § 1825(b)(2). See Lee, 130 F.3d at 1143; Matagorda County v. Russell Law, 19 F.3d 215, 222 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Simon, 53 F.3d at 21 (same). In determining
holding state law governs property interests in bankruptcy proceedings unless some federal interest requires a different result   holding that federal law governs the definition of property which embraces both fee and lien interests holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that in a bankruptcy proceeding state law governs the rights of the parties with regard to interests in property holding that though mississippi law governs the amount of the fee award here because the factors considered under state and federal law are nearly identical both state and federal cases are instructive