trust. Their right to occupy is merely contractual and subject to revocation, which makes them at most tenants at will of the relevant property. ... [W]e believe and hold that a person who occupies premises with the permission of the owner has a sufficient interest in the realty to support a claim for a homestead exemption under Arkansas law.... It is important to realize, however, that such a homestead exemption would be good only to the extent of the interest owned. Id. at 813. Although the Richardson case is not binding on our court, it was decided based on Arkansas law and offers persuasive support for our decision. Indeed, other jurisdictions have extended the homestead exemption to revocable trusts in other circumstances. See Redmond v. Kester, 284 Kan. 209, 159 P.3d 1004 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Engelke v. Engelke, 921 So.2d 693
recognizing ability of beneficiary to claim exemption in bankruptcy 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 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 holding that where a married debtor files an individual bankruptcy case and claims the  522b3b tbe exemption the debtor indirectly obtains the benefit of floridas constitutional homestead protection by virtue of the nondebtor spouses ability to claim the homestead exemption 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