In Helvetica Servicing Inc. v. Pasquan, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals established new law in Arizona.  Mr. Pasquan had purchased land and a house in Paradise Hills with a purchase money loan from Hamilton Mortgage.  Thereafter he obtained a new loan from Desert Hills Bank to demolish and build a new house on the property. Following that he borrowed more funds from Helvetica to refinance the Desert Hills loan and obtain additional funds for other expenses unrelated to the construction of the new home.  Following his default, Helvetica sued and won a deficiency judgment for the full amount of the deficiency between the amount owed on the Helvetica loan and the value of the property.  Pasquan appealed and the Court of Appeals agreed that both the Desert Hills Bank loan qualified as a purchase money loan to which the anti-deficiency statute would apply and that portion of the Helvetica loan which was used to pay off the Desert Hills Bank loan qualified for anti-deficiency status.  However, in a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals ruled that if the lender could prove that portions of the loan proceeds were used for other purposes, that portion of the loan could be deemed to be non-purchase money and a deficiency judgment could be obtained for the repayment of that portion of the loan.  The Court of Appeals found that a construction loan could qualify for purchase money status, but the lender has the right to prove that loan proceeds were used for other purposes not qualifying for protection under the anti-deficiency statute.