With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". qualify for the exemption based on her claimed position as 100% stockholder of OHC. (Doc. # 1-3 at 11) (citing In re Duque, 33 B.R. 201 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1983)). According to Steffen, she never asserted the exemption based on her stockholder status, because OHLP “was 100% owned by the [1995] revocable trust.” (Doc. # 16 at 21.) Thus, Steffen asserts that her ownership interest arises from her status as sole beneficiary of the 1995 Trust, which was 99% limited partner of OHLP and owned all of the stock in OHLP’s general partner, OHC. (Id. at 8 n. 2, 25.) Steffen cites to several cases holding that the trustee and beneficiary of a revocable trust can claim property held in the name of the trust as exempt homestead. (Id. at 23). See e.g. In re Edwards, 356 B.R. 807, 811 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>); In re Alexander, 346 B.R. 546, 551

A: 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
B: holding that a wife could claim a homestead exemption even though she only had a beneficiary interest in the property held in trust
C: 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
D: holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate
C.