Co., 113 W.Va. 764, 169 S.E. 738 (1933). Finally, the Court has consistently held that “[s]ubrogation entitles a person to no greater rights than the party had to whose rights he claims subrogation.” Butts v. Sun Lumber Co., 82 W.Va. 113, 95 S.E. 585 (1918). In the instant case, Valley requests this Court to apply the doctrine of subrogation, presumably pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court’s equity power under 11 U.S.C. § 105 whereby the Court is authorized to “issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” However, the powers enumerated in section 105(a) “are not a license for a court to disregard the clear language and meaning of the bankruptcy statutes and rules.” Rouse v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 226 B.R. 39 (W.D.Mo.1998) (<HOLDING>), quoting Viking Associates v. Drewes (In re
holding that the refiling of a tax lien during bankruptcy proceedings did not create perfect or enforce a lien in violation of the  362a4 holding that the lien bond releases the property from the lien but the lien is then secured by the bond holding that under michigan law when debtors paid off the initial loan with the proceeds of refinancing the creditors pmsi in stereo expired holding that one finance company did not perfect its lien in the mobile home in question and that second finance company which financed purchase of the home by a bona fide purchaser for value did perfect its lien holding that creditor who did not timely perfect lien in mobile home after refinancing loan notentitled to subrogation even though delay resulted from prior pmsi holders delay in releasing lien