942 (8th ed. 2004) (defining “first lien” as “[a] lien that takes priority over all other charges or encumbrances on the same property and that must be satisfied before other charges may share in proceeds from the property’s sale”). The great weight of federal authority also coincides with this view. See Brown v. Investors Mortgage Co., 121 F.3d 472, 475 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating the statutory language that “state usury restrictions, ‘shall not apply to any loan *** secured by a first lien.’ ” (emphasis in original), quoting 12 U.S.C. § 1735f— 7a(a)(1) (1994)); Gora v. Banc One Financial Services Inc., No. 95 C 2542 (N.D. Ill. October 17, 1995) (mem. op.) (finding section 501 applies to nonpurchase money loans); In re L.G.H. Enterprises, Inc. 146 B.R. 612 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 898
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 section 501 applies to both purchase money and refinancing mortgages 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 a purchase money security in jewelry was not lost when the perfected purchase money security interest was consolidated with a subsequent retail installment contract holding that under minnesota law refinancing and consolidation of purchase money loans did not destroy their purchase money character for bankruptcy lien avoidance purposes