In re Rice, 462 B.R. 651

Debtor Megan Lynn Rice purchased a 2003 Chevy Trailblazer financed via the dealership, with a security interest later assigned to Wells Fargo Auto Finance, Inc. (WFAFI).
WFAFI transferred its security interest to Wells Fargo Bank (WFB) on July 11, 2008, but did not record the assignment on the Trailblazer’s certificate of title.
Debtor defaulted in 2010; WFB filed a motion for relief from stay in bankruptcy to proceed with abandonment or sale of the vehicle.
Bankruptcy court found WFB lacked standing due to failure to note the assignment on title, asserting lack of unity of entity between WFB and WFAFI.
WFB appealed, contending assignment validity and lack of title notation should confer standing; court conducted analysis of ‘party in interest’ and unity of entity concepts.
Panel concluded WFB had properly perfected security interest under Ohio law and that unity of entity was not a prerequisite for relief from stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unity of entity is required for relief from stay	WFB argued assignment suffices for standing without title notation.	Rice argued two entities must be merged to have standing to seek stay relief.	Unity of entity not required; assignee may have standing.
Whether an assignee must note the assignment on the certificate of title to have a perfected security interest	Assignment need not be noted to maintain perfection; WFB remains properly perfected.	Noting on title is necessary to establish enforceable lien against debtor's property.	No re-perfection or title notation required to maintain perfection for motor vehicle liens.
Who is the proper party in interest to seek relief from stay when a fully perfected lien exists but title shows a different lienholder	WFB retains enforceable interest as assignee of perfected lien.	Title record designates another lienholder, complicating status to bring stay relief.	WFB, as holder of a perfected interest, is the proper party to seek relief.

In re Brady, 101 F.3d 1165 (6th Cir.1996) (trustee standing for extension under Rule 4007(c))
In re Comcoach, 698 F.2d 571 (2nd Cir.1983) (defining ‘party in interest’ in § 362(d) and related contexts)
In re James Wilson Assocs., 965 F.2d 160 (7th Cir.1992) (interpretation of party in interest and standing considerations)
In re Kapp, 611 F.2d 703 (8th Cir.1979) (broad interpretation of party in interest in bankruptcy contexts)
In re Hutchinson, 5 F.3d 750 (4th Cir.1993) (party in interest and standing principles in financing contexts)
In re Global Indus. Techs., Inc., 645 F.3d 201 (3d Cir.2011) (expands view of party in interest in bankruptcy proceedings)