Activism

Probate Reform: Thinking of Future Beneficiaries, Jendayi Continues Battle to Uphold Trust

Jendayi, who says she’s one of Dr. Head’s closest friends and the sole beneficiary named in the estate plan, contends that the latest developments have brought her back to the same position she faced in 2023, continuing to fight for what she believes are her legal rights to the estate.

Published

2 months ago

July 5, 2026

Oakland Post

Zakiya Jendayi was named the sole beneficiary of her friend Dr. Laura Dean Head. Courtesy photo.

By Tanya Dennis

Plaintiff Zakiya Jendayi says she has come full circle in her years-long legal battle over the estate of her late friend, Dr. Laura Dean Head.

The case, Hamlin v. Jendayi, was previously covered by the Post News Group on Nov. 18, 2025, when Alameda County Superior Court Judge Sandra Bean invalidated Head’s will and trust and ruled in favor of Head’s disinherited sisters.

Bean’s ruling on March 28, 2023, invalidated the Head Trust after finding undue influence. Jendayi filed a petition seeking to vacate that judgment. According to Jendayi, the court declined to consider the merits of her petition, stating that nearly three years had passed since the original ruling and citing the legal principles of finality and timeliness.

Jendayi disputes that conclusion. She argues that California law permits a judgment to be set aside and vacated at any time if it was entered without jurisdiction, without due process, or was procured through fraud upon the court.

In her motion to vacate the judgment, she alleges that the original decision lacked jurisdictional and constitutional foundations and further claims there was no operative pleading before the court. Those allegations have not been adjudicated yet.

After the court declined to grant her requested relief on May 8, 2026, Jendayi filed another appeal with the appellate court.

“What I need now are amicus briefs from lawyers, commissioners, judges, legal scholars, and citizens who have taken the time to read my case,” Jendayi said. “That’s why I published my court transcripts in the Post on Nov. 18, 2025, so readers could examine for themselves what I believe were 42 erroneous rulings made during my case.

“Amicus briefs are taken very seriously by appellate courts, and I am asking people to review the record, form their own opinions, and submit their briefs through the National Probate Reform Coalition in care of the Post News Group. This case represents what I see as a fight between the people and the system. If we don’t stand together, the system wins every time.”

Meanwhile, the court-appointed administrator filed an unlawful detainer action seeking possession of the property occupied by Jendayi. Following trial, the court granted possession to the administrator, and Jendayi was served with a writ of possession.

Jendayi subsequently filed an Ex Parte application requesting that enforcement of the judgment be stayed while her appeal proceeds. On June 30, the court granted a temporary stay of enforcement through Aug. 8.

“It takes enormous intestinal fortitude to stand up against the court system,” Jendayi said. “The stress and duress I’ve experienced throughout these years have only been bearable through God’s grace.

“Because I believe this case has become legal precedent that could affect families throughout California, I feel a responsibility to continue fighting until what I believe is a wrongful judgment is overturned, rescinded, and removed from the law. If this ruling is allowed to stand, every property owner should be concerned because, in my opinion, it undermines the security of wills and trusts.”

Jendayi maintains that her appeal raises issues extending beyond her own case, arguing that the outcome could have significant implications for future probate and trust litigation.

Editor’s Note: The claims and legal arguments described in this article reflect the allegations and positions asserted by Ms. Jendayi in pending court proceedings. The opposing parties have not had an opportunity to respond within this article. When asked to comment on ongoing court cases, judges and court officials must follow strict ethical rules that generally require them to decline comment in order to preserve the fairness of pending proceedings and maintain the neutrality of the judicial system.