that he has not since abandoned it. In re Leonard, 194 B.R. 807, 809-10 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1996). Here, the evidence supports a finding that the debtor lived in the club house on the western parcel from the time he purchased it in 2006 until he moved to Austin in 2009. “Possession and use of land by one who owns it and who resides upon it makes it the homestead in law and in fact.” Sanchez v. Telles, 960 S.W.2d 762, 770 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997). Furthermore, “[w]hile homestead claimants normally do have to demonstrate intent [to designate land as a homestead], property owners who reside on and use their property do not.” Sifuentes v. Arriola, 2009 WL 1099253, at *3-4, 2009 Tex.App. LEXIS 2849, at *9 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr. 22, 2009); see also In re Kennard, 970 F.2d 1455, 1459 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). By establishing that he lived in the club
holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code 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 bankruptcy court had abused its discretion by finding the debtor lacked the intent to claim property as a homestead where the debtors occupancy and use of his home and the surrounding acreage were unquestioned 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 homestead established by actual use and occupancy coupled with an actual intent to live permanently in a house