With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Florida homestead for the sole purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding her creditors. Key Bank appeals the district court’s order. II. DISCUSSION The following legal issue was the primary focus of the parties’ briefs on appeal: whether a claimed Florida homestead exemption can be successfully challenged if the home is purchased with non-exempt assets with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors in violation of Fla. Stat. § 726.105. In Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Lang, 898 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.Fla.1995), the district court answered that question in the negative. Our research leads us to believe that this question is a significant issue of Florida law with respect to which the Florida precedent is not clear. See Butterworth v. Caggiano, 605 So.2d 56, 60 (Fla.1992) (<HOLDING>); Palm Beach Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Fishbein,

A: holding that a homestead was exempt from civil or criminal forfeiture under floridas rico act because forfeitures are not mentioned either expressly or by reasonable implication in the three enumerated exceptions to floridas homestead exemption
B: 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
C: holding that the general homestead exemption may not be invoked to defeat claims against the holder for taxes and assessments against the homestead property
D: 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
A.