With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 55 . Id. at 225-26. 56 . Id. at 226. 57 . We express no opinion as to whether a debtor could validly claim that, as to real property acquired before the enactment of the BAPCPA, there has been an unconstitutional partial taking of homestead rights to the extent that the real property had a value in excess of the cap in § 522(p). 58 . Rogers, 513 F.3d at 216. 59 . 836 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.1992). 60 . Heggen, 836 S.W.2d at 148. 61 . Id. at 146. 62 . Id. at 148. 63 .Id. at 146. 64 . Id. at 148 (alteration in original) (quoting Tex Const, art. XVI, § 50). 65 . Id. 66 . Id. at 146 n. 1. 67 . Id. at 148. 68 . Id. 69 . 919 S.W.2d 657, 662 (Tex.1996) (citing United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 680, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983)). 70 . See Rodgers, 461 U.S. at 680, 103 S.Ct. 2132 (<HOLDING>); id. at 693-94, 103 S.Ct. 2132 (reading § 7403

A: holding that as a general rule a claim for spousal loss of consortium requires proof of a tortious act that caused the claimants spouse personal injury
B: 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
C: recognizing that loss of consortium is a right of action separate from that of the spouse
D: holding that 26 usc  7403 requires complete compensation for the loss of the homestead estate to a spouse as part of the distribution of proceeds required under  7403
D.