corpus, not even a power to revoke. They occupy the property merely because they have a contract with the trust which “requires” them to “live on the premises,” subject to having to vacate on fifteen days’ notice. This revocable right of occupancy is the only interest in the property that they enjoy. Id. at 813. In discussing the law in Arkansas regarding homestead exemptions the court noted 17that [t]he Klaessons provide us with numerous cases that hold that equitable owners may claim homestead rights, and we entertain no doubt that, under Arkansas law, a person in possession as the beneficiary of a trust could claim the protection of the homestead exemption, assuming, of course, that he or she was married or the head of a family. But here the Klaessons are not beneficiaries of t ) (<HOLDING>); Callava v. Feinberg, 864 So.2d 429
holding that regardless of whether the property was held as tenants in common or by the entirety the husband was entitled to hold property as a homestead holding that a wife could claim a homestead exemption even though she only had a beneficiary interest in the property held in trust holding that a bankruptcy debtor may claim the homestead exemption for real property transferred to a selfsettled revocable trust even though the settlor and the beneficiary as well as the bankruptcy debtor were the same person holding that debtor as grantor and trustee of a trust that held legal title to the property held a sufficient equitable interest in the property to claim it as exempt homestead where she resided on the property prepetition with the intent to maintain it as her primary residence holding that the property held by the revocable trust in which the trustee was the beneficiary and the property was his permanent residence was a constitutionally protected homestead property