Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Court finds that the debtors formally had established the Dog Leg Property as their residence by December 2008. In Florida, “[t]he homestead character of a property ‘depends upon an actual intention to reside thereon as a permanent place of residence, coupled with the fact of residence.’ ” In re Bennett, 395 B.R. 781, 789 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2008) (quoting Hillsborough Investment Co. v. Wilcox, 152 Fla. 889, 13 So.2d 448, 452 (1943)). Thus, homeowners seeking to qualify for the homestead exemption must meet both an objective and subjective test. First, they must actually use and occupy the home. Second, they must express an actual intent to live permanently in the home. In re Franzese, 383 B.R. 197, 203 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla.2008) (citing In re Brown, 165 B.R. 512, 514 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1994)) (<HOLDING>). A claim of homestead exemption in Florida is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived (B) holding homestead established by actual use and occupancy coupled with an actual intent to live permanently in a house (C) 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 (D) holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury (E) holding bankruptcy court had abused its discretion by finding the debtor lacked the intent to claim property as a homestead where the debtors occupancy and use of his home and the surrounding acreage were unquestioned
Output (English): holding that inmates must demonstrate an actual injury