1988). If a conflict occurs between the property used in the financing statement on file and that used in the security agreement, the security agreement prevails. Jones & Laughlin Supply v. Dugan Production Corp., 508 P.2d 1348 (N.M. 1973) (citing Ronald A. Anderson, Anderson on The Uniform Commercial Code § 9-204:9 (3d ed. 1996)). Further, the financing statement does not serve to add collateral not described in the security agreement. Kurtz v. Illinois Nat. Bank, 534 N.E.2d 1007 (Ill. a financing statement describes a greater quantity of property than that described in the corresponding security agreement, the security interest is defined by the narrower description contained within the security agreement[]”); Federal Land Bank v. Bay Park Place, 412 N.W.2d 222 (Mich. App. 1987) (<HOLDING>). In the case below, the security agreement was
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 security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest 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 trustee could not avoid a security interest under section 549 when that security interest was authorized by the bankruptcy court 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