. 513 F.3d 212 (5th Cir.2008). 47 . Kim v. Kim (In re Kim), No. 3:09-cv-01082-N, slip op. at 11 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 11, 2010). 48 . Rogers, 513 F.3d at 216. 49 . Id. 50 . Id. 51 . 75 Fed.Reg. 8747-01 (Feb. 25, 2010) (raising the amount of the cap from $136,875 to $146,450.) 52 . Rogers, 513 F.3d at 215. 53 . Id. at 224 (emphasis added). 54 . Id. (emphasis in o to contemplate, not merely the sale of the delinquent taxpayer's own interest, but ... the recognition of third-party interests through the mechanism of judicial valuation and distribution”). 71 . In re Rogers, 513 F.3d 212, 225 (5th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original) (quoting Perry v. Bearing (In re Perry), 345 F.3d 303, 314-15 (5th Cir.2003)). 72 . See United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 685, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Lucas v. Lucas, 104 Tex. 636, 143 S.W. 1153,
holding that homestead exemption was unavailable even though claimants were  living on the land and claiming it as homestead with the permission or acquiescence of the owner for they could have no homestead right or interest in land to which they had no title holding even though debtor would have been entitled to iowa homestead exemption but for former spouses iowa code section 59821 lien debtor could not avoid the lien because it attached to the homestead prior to or simultaneously with debtors acquisition of the interest in the homestead recognizing that the rights accorded by the homestead laws vest independently in each spouse regardless of whether one spouse or both actually owns the fee interest in the homestead holding that the general rule is that temporary absence from the premises will not itself cause an abandonment of the homestead but to retain the homestead exemption one leaving the homestead must in good faith intend to return albeit the intent to return need not be at any particular time in the future holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium