Bay Area

The Case Against Probate Part 2 – The Dr. Laura Dean Head Case

Zakiya Folami Jendayi says, “Dr. Laura Dean Head had two sisters but was estranged from them the entire 28 years we were friends.”Despite that fact, Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, questioned Head’s trust three times after Head transitioned, attempting to acquire Head’s estate, and three different attorneys told them they didn’t have standing. Dr. Head did not include either of her sisters in her trust or will. Dr. Head’s Trust included a disinheritance and no contest clause regarding her sisters.

Published

1 month ago

May 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Dr. Laura Dean Head, right, and Zakiya Jendayi, left. Dr. Head was Jendayi's academic advisor, mentor, sorority sister and dear friend for 28 years. Courtesy photo.

By Tanya Dennis

Dr. Laura Dean Head, a Black Studies professor at San Francisco State University for 35 years, transitioned on June 19, 2013. Aware of her imminent demise, Dr. Head appointed former student and friend for 28 years, Zakiya Folami Jendayi as trustee, executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate in front of several credible witnesses and a notary. Head also gave Jendayi power of attorney and appointed Jendayi as her advanced healthcare agent.

Jendayi says, “Laura had two sisters but was estranged from them the entire 28 years we were friends.”Despite that fact, Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, questioned Head’s trust three times after Head transitioned, attempting to acquire Head’s estate, and three different attorneys told them they didn’t have standing. Dr. Head did not include either of her sisters in her trust or will. Dr. Head’s Trust included a disinheritance and no contest clause regarding her sisters.

In 2020, Dr. Head’s deceased mother’s abandoned property for over 20 years sold, entitling Head’s estate to one-third of the proceeds. Jendayi filed a petition for distribution rights on behalf of Dr. Head’s estate. Head’s sisters responded, filing a lawsuit against Jendayi to invalidate Head’s trust, claiming Jendayi used undue influence and forgery, citing Head’s lack of capacity to make business decisions.

During trial, Della testified she had not seen Head since 1997 or 1998, and Helaine could not identify Dr. Head in a photo during her trial testimony. Head’s physician, Dr. Stephen Sarafian, wrote a letter and testified that Dr. Head lacked mental capacity, and her mental state rendered her unable to manage her own financial resources and/or to resist fraud or undue influence.

His letter had the wrong day, month, year and identified Dr. Head as a male. Jendayi filed a complaint against Sarafian with Kaiser’s grievance department and the Medical Board of California. Both agencies denounced Sarafian’s false letter.

When Jendayi subpoenaed Sarafian to testify a second time, Sarafian testified he had not performed a mental assessment on Dr. Head, had not diagnosed Dr. Head’s lack mental capacity, and had not determined if she could manage her own financial resources and/or resist fraud or undue influence,

During the 18-day trial, the sisters’ attorney, Daniel Leahy, stated that Jendayi named herself Head’s beneficiary. No one testified to that claim, nor was there any evidence. When Jendayi objected during the trial, Judge Sandra Bean stated, “it’s only argument.”

However, Bean accepted the “only argument” lie from Leahy, a court attorney who never met Dr. Head, over Dr. Head’s attorney, Elaine Lee, who testified that Dr. Head named Jendayi as her beneficiary after she met with Dr. Head privately. Bean ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and unduly influenced Dr. Head.

Zendayi says “Trial transcripts show Bean’s extreme bias and discrimination against me, how Bean lawyered from the bench, abused her discretion, changed a witness testimony on the record and exhibited blatant racism.”

The Appellate Court upheld Bean’s ruling, They also ruled that Jendayi named herself beneficiary and relied on Sarafian’s invalid letter three times to uphold Bean’s ruling.

Jendayi then petitioned to the Supreme Court of California for justice, but the Court denied hearing her case. Jendayi is now headed to the Supreme Court of the United States seeking justice. Judge Bean has been contacted for comment, but thus far there has been no response.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

State Orders Cleanup of Former Richmond Landfill

Don't Miss

After Two Decades, Oakland Unified Will Finally Regain Local Control

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

Published

15 hours ago

June 20, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Juneteenth: Celebrating Our History, Honoring Our Shared Spaces

It’s been empowering to watch Juneteenth blossom into a widely celebrated holiday, filled with vibrant outdoor events like cookouts, festivals, parades, and more. It’s inspiring to see the community embrace our history—showing up in droves to celebrate freedom, a freedom delayed for some enslaved Americans more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

Published

2 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

By Wayne Wilson, Public Affairs Campaign Manager, Caltrans

Juneteenth marks an important moment in our shared history—a time to reflect on the legacy of our ancestors who, even in the face of injustice, chose freedom, unity, and community over fear, anger, and hopelessness. We honor their resilience and the paths they paved so future generations can continue to walk with pride.

As we head into the weekend full of festivities and summer celebrations, I want to offer a friendly reminder about who is not invited to the cookout: litter.

At Clean California, we believe the places where we gather—parks, parade routes, street corners, and church lots—should reflect the pride and beauty of the people who fill them. Our mission is to restore and beautify public spaces, transforming areas impacted by trash and neglect into spaces that reflect the strength and spirit of the communities who use them.

Too often, after the music fades and the grills cool, our public spaces are left littered with trash. Just as our ancestors took pride in their communities, we honor their legacy when we clean up after ourselves, teach our children to do the same, and care for our shared spaces.

Small acts can inspire big change. Since 2021, Clean California and its partners have collected and removed over 2.9 million cubic yards of litter. We did this by partnering with local nonprofits and community organizations to organize grassroots cleanup events and beautification projects across California.

Now, we invite all California communities to continue the incredible momentum and take the pledge toward building a cleaner community through our Clean California Community Designation Program. This recognizes cities and neighborhoods committed to long-term cleanliness and civic pride.

This Juneteenth, let’s not only celebrate our history—but also contribute to its legacy. By picking up after ourselves and by leaving no litter behind after celebrations, we have an opportunity to honor our past and shape a cleaner, safer, more vibrant future.

Visit CleanCA.com to learn more about Clean California.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

2 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.