By Quintella Griffin , Legal Writer

You put your home in a living trust. You choose who inherits. You expressly disinherit relatives. An attorney prepares the documents. You expect your wishes to survive you.

Dr. Laura Dean Head’s trust did not.

California property owners should examine Laura Dean Head Living Trust, Alameda County Superior Court, Oakland, Case No. RP20061734, and Hamlin v. Jendayi, California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, Case No. A167695.

The case delivers a sobering warning: a living trust can face a successful challenge even when its chosen beneficiary presents evidence supporting the person’s stated wishes.

Head, a San Francisco State University professor, named Zakiya Jendayi as successor trustee and primary beneficiary. They had known each other for 28 years. Seven years after Dr. Head’s death, her estranged sisters contested the trust. Jendayi alleges that they consulted various probate attorneys while forum shopping before pursuing the challenge. Judge Sandra K. Bean in Dept. 103 invalidated the trust based on undue influence.

Jendayi’s compilation, “The Truth Is in the Transcriptions,” places disputed findings beside testimony and medical records. She argues that the evidence tells a different story.

Trending

Open Letter to the City Council: Tell the A’s to Stop Abusing Oakland

Estate planning attorney Elaine Lee testified that she reviewed the trust privately with Head, behind a closed door. Lee’s testimony, reproduced in the compilation, attributes the beneficiary choices to Head and describes her insistence that her sisters receive nothing.

Hospice social worker Jenna Noe confirmed that Head told her she wanted to leave her belongings to Jendayi. Noe also testified that Head made her own decisions in their conversations.

The court described complete dependence on Jendayi. The compilation points to paid caregivers, hospice professionals and frequent visits from friends. When the judge asked nurse Dolly Woodson whether she had witnessed Jendayi abusing Head, Woodson answered no.

Jendayi also challenges the court’s treatment of her conditional power of attorney and alleges omissions and unequal treatment of evidence.

Yet the appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found substantial evidence supporting undue influence, rejected the judicial-bias claims and deemed any deficiencies in the statement of decision harmless. The published portion held that disinherited potential intestate heirs had standing to contest the trust.

That ruling endangers Californians who have properties held in a trust. Disinheritance did not prevent this challenge, and evidence supporting Head’s intentions did not secure the outcome Jendayi sought.

For homeowners relying on a living trust, the question is urgent: how well will your documented choices withstand a contested courtroom narrative?

Read the decision at https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2024/a167695m.html

Examine the testimony. Consider what happened when a woman’s written wishes and the evidence offered to defend them were still not enough.

Sources: Hamlin v. Jendayi (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1064, opinion filed Oct. 17, 2024, modified Nov. 12, 2024; Jendayi’s supplied compilation of transcript excerpts and exhibits. Claims of error reflect Jendayi’s position.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

By Quintella Griffin, Legal Writer

Opinion and documentary analysis | Part 2 of 2

A tentative ruling found that Oakland property occupant Zakiya Jendayi had not received notice before a judge ordered its transfer into an estate.

The ruling was not final. Attention shifted to the assigned judge.

The estate’s special administrator, Phillip Campbell, invoked California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to disqualify Judge Stephanie Sato. The trial court granted the challenge Sept. 9, 2026.

Five days later, Campbell requested reassignment specifically to Judge Sandra Bean, who had signed the property order Jendayi sought to overturn.

The sequence raises questions about procedural fairness.

A Challenge After an Unfavorable Ruling

Sato’s Sept. 8 tentative ruling concluded that California’s notice requirement protected Jendayi as an occupant, regardless of whether Jendayi held a valid ownership interest.

Her proposed decision would have vacated Bean’s Oct. 8, 2025, order.

Section 170.6 permits challenges under certain circumstances. Whether Campbell’s challenge was timely was disputed.

Trending

Kaiser Permanente Supports Covid-19 Prevention Efforts For People Experiencing Homelessness In Oakland

On Sept. 14, Campbell sought Bean’s reassignment, citing her familiarity with related trust litigation, judicial economy and consistency. Jendayi opposed the request the following day.

The timing invites serious public scrutiny but does not establish misconduct.

The Appellate Court Intervenes

In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1987), a California appellate court examined the danger of allowing litigants to learn a judge’s likely decision before seeking disqualification.

The decision also recognized that changed assignments and insufficient notice can affect when a challenge is permissible.

On Sept. 17, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal stayed the order granting Campbell’s challenge and requested briefing addressing Kaiser.

That intervention did not vacate Bean’s property order, restore the invalidated trust or conclusively decide whether Campbell’s challenge was improper.

It did place the reassignment dispute under appellate review.

Questions in the Docket

Two versions of the court docket present another unresolved issue.

A printout preserved through Sept. 15 lacked reassignment entries that appeared in a later version. The later docket listed reassignment to Bean and a clerk’s notice under Sept. 9.

The difference warrants an explanation of when the entries were created, entered and made publicly accessible.

It does not establish deliberate backdating.

Accountability Beyond an Order

Judges generally enjoy immunity from damages claims arising from judicial acts, even when serious error is alleged. That protection does not make their decisions immune from review.

Appellate courts can correct legal errors; California’s Commission on Judicial Performance can investigate misconduct but cannot reverse judgments.

For Jendayi, the central concern remains practical: How much litigation must an occupant undertake to enforce a notice requirement intended to protect participation before property rights are adjudicated?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. underscores the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to object.

The record establishes contested filings, a tentative ruling and appellate intervention, not anyone’s private motives.

The public deserves a transparent, documented explanation of this consequential judicial process.

A judge’s signature should resolve a lawful dispute, not silence legitimate questions about how the decision was reached.

The case is Estate of Laura Dean Head, Alameda County Superior Court case RP20066047. Records are available through the court’s eCourt Public Portal.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

A proposed mixed-use development at 338 Carlson Blvd. could bring hundreds of homes and support services for military veterans to South Richmond.

Led by the Richmond-based Veterans Resource Program in partnership with Eagle Environmental Construction & Development, the proposal covers an approximately 2.3-acre property the nonprofit acquired in 2018.

The proposal features a multi-building residential development with various apartment sizes, though city documents and developer materials cite conflicting totals ranging from 226 to 268 units.

The proposal also includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, about 200 parking spaces, and an entrepreneurial training and job-development component intended to connect veterans with economic and workforce opportunities.

According to the development team’s presentation, the project has an estimated total cost of nearly $158 million. The presentation outlines five phases encompassing entitlement and construction documents, community outreach, soil remediation and utility work, podium and building construction, solar technology integration, and interior buildouts.

Founded in 2011, the Veterans Resource Program provides housing assistance and other services to veterans, including those experiencing homelessness or transitioning from incarceration.

Trending

200 East Oakland Residents Rally for Black Solidarity

The proposal aims to advance Richmond’s affordable housing goals while connecting veterans with housing and supportive services. Details of affordability and veteran eligibility remain to be clarified.

The Richmond City Council was scheduled to receive an informational presentation on the project at its Oct. 6 meeting, following a continuance from Sept. 22. The item does not seek project approval or city funding. Any future request for city financial assistance or other public resources would require separate consideration and approval.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group