exemption violates his rights under the South Dakota Constitution and statutes. We do not question his assertion that the South Dakota Constitution guarantees South Dako-tans’ right to a homestead or that South Dakota law permits debtors to claim a homestead exemption in bankruptcy cases; rather, the question here is whether the property in which the Debtor claimed a homestead exemption was, in fact, his homestead. Under well-established South Dakota precedent, because the Debtor removed himself from the Spark Street property with no fixed or actual intent to return, it is no longer his homestead. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in concluding that the Debtor has abandoned 13, 820 (8th Cir. 2010) ("A mere 's Nov. 15, 2006) (not reported) (<HOLDING>); In re Dice, 1997 WL 1125702 at *2
holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment holding a wife liable for necessary medical expenses incurred by her husband under the doctrine even though the wife did not sign as a guarantor and did not request that her husband be admitted nor anticipate that her husband would be admitted holding admissible a letter which a woman had purportedly written to a judge 2 days before her death stating that her husband had threatened her and she feared him where the defendant husband claimed she had threatened him holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort