Drown v. Perfect (In Re Giaimo), 440 B.R. 761

Debtor Evonne Giaimo filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition and owned a 2008 Toyota RAV4.
Veronica O'Keefe, Debtor’s grandmother, was identified as lienholder on the title and application for title.
Debtor signed an Ohio title application listing O'Keefe as lienholder; no formal loan documents were produced.
Trustee filed an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 544 to avoid O'Keefe's lien due to lack of a written security agreement.
Bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for Trustee, holding no valid security interest under Ohio law absent a written security agreement.
Court on appeal reversed, holding that the application for title and the title itself can constitute a security agreement under Ohio Revised Code § 1309.203 and create a security interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether title application and title suffice to create a security interest	Trustee: no valid security agreement under Ohio law without writing	O'Keefe: title documents alone satisfy writing requirement under § 1309.203 via composite documents	Yes; application for title and title constitute a security agreement

Silver Creek Supply v. Powell, 36 Ohio App.3d 140, 521 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987) (composite documents approach; writing requirement under Ohio law)
Saturn of Kings Automall, Inc. v. Mike Albert Leasing, Inc., 92 Ohio St.3d 513, 751 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio Supreme Court 2001) (interplay of title law with security interests; perfection vs creation)
Arcanum National Bank v. Hessler, 69 Ohio St.2d 549, 433 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio Supreme Court 1982) (recognition that UCC Article 9 interacts with title laws)
Baystate Drywall, Inc. v. Chicopee Savings Bank, 385 Mass. 17, 429 N.E.2d 1138 (Mass. 1982) (title notation can create security interest when intent shown)
Krieger v. Hartig, 527 P.2d 483 (Wash. 1974) (noting forms of writing sufficient to evidence security interest)