A Public Record of Hamlin v. Jendayi
Hamlin v. Jendayi concerns the invalidation of the estate plan of Dr. Laura Dean Head, a Black Studies professor at San Francisco State University for 35 years.
Dr. Head and Zakiya Jendayi shared a documented relationship spanning 28 years. Dr. Head was Jendayi’s college professor, academic advisor, mentor, sorority sister, and dear friend.
Their longstanding relationship is reflected throughout the trial record in witness testimony, letters of recommendation written by Dr. Head on Jendayi’s behalf, emails and cards, photographs, and other evidence presented during the proceedings.
In 2013, after becoming terminally ill, Dr. Head legally executed estate planning documents naming Zakiya Jendayi as her trustee, executor, and sole beneficiary.
Dr. Head’s Trust and Will were prepared by estate planning attorney Elaine Lee. Lee testified that she met privately with Dr. Head and that Dr. Head identified Jendayi as the person she wanted to receive her estate.
Additionally, Lee wrote a declaration stating she did not find Dr. Head to be a victim of fraud or undue influence.
Dr. Head also appointed Jendayi as her agent under a Power of Attorney and Advance Health Care Directive. Those documents were prepared by Kaiser Permanente social worker Jennifer Hopping, who also testified that she interviewed Dr. Head, solo, with no one else in the room so there was no undue influence.
All of Dr. Head’s legal documents were notarized by Trina E. Jackson.
Dr. Head died on June 19, 2013. Dr. Head’s sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head hired three different attorneys between 2013 and 2015 to challenge Dr. Head’s Trust. All three attorneys informed them they did not have a probate case because Dr. Head had a Trust and a Will. The sisters were neither Trustees or Beneficiaries and the Trust was never amended. The Trust also included a disinheritance clause and a no contest clause for Dr. Head’s heirs.
Seven years later, after Jendayi sought property due to Dr. Head’s estate from the estate of Dr. Head’s deceased mother, Dr. Head’s sisters hired attorney Daniel Leahy who challenged Dr. Head’s estate plan in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
They alleged forgery, lack of capacity, and undue influence. After trial, the court rejected the allegations of forgery and lack of capacity but ruled that Jendayi had exercised undue influence over Dr. Head. Based on that ruling, the court invalidated Dr. Head’s Trust.
The March 28, 2023 Statement of Decision states:
“Based on the court’s finding of undue influence, the court finds the Trust invalid. The court orders all Trust assets transferred forthwith to the Special Administrator of the Estate of Laura Dean Head, Phillip Campbell, in case number RP20066047.”
The ruling displaced Dr. Head’s written estate plan and transferred control of all Trust assets to the Special Administrator of Dr. Head’s estate.
DR. HEAD’S WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS
Dr. Head’s Trust named Zakiya Jendayi as her sole beneficiary and contained both a No Contest Clause and an express Disinheritance Clause.
The Trust stated that an heir, relative, or beneficiary who contested the Trust or attempted to prevent its provisions from being carried out would forfeit any inheritance, benefits, and proceeds from Dr. Head’s Trust or estate.
The Trust further stated:
“I hereby generally and specifically intentionally disinherit each and any and all persons whomsoever claiming to be or who may be lawfully determined to be my heirs at law.”
The Trust also directed:
“Under no circumstances shall any part, share or interest in my estate go to, vest in, or be taken by any heir/relative not listed in my trust.”
The invalidation of the Trust eliminated the legal instrument through which Dr. Head documented those instructions.
The public is invited to read the Trust and examine Dr. Head’s written instructions for themselves.
WHAT THE COURT FOUND
The Statement of Decision characterized the relationship between Dr. Head and Jendayi as follows:
“The result is inequitable because the evidence shows that Respondent was a former student and friend who, at best, cared for the settlor for the last two months of her life.”
WHAT THE TRIAL RECORD SHOWS
The trial record documents a relationship spanning 28 years.
According to the evidence presented during the proceedings, Dr. Head was Jendayi’s college professor, academic advisor, mentor, sorority sister, and dear friend.
The record includes witness testimony from people who knew Dr. Head and Jendayi, letters of recommendation written by Dr. Head on Jendayi’s behalf, personal emails and cards, photographs documenting their longstanding relationship, and other evidence presented during the trial.
This website provides the source documents so the public can compare the court’s findings, ruling and characterization of the relationship with the trial record.
THE 42-POINT FACT CHECK
The court’s finding of undue influence was supported by factual findings and rulings contained in its Statement of Decision.
Zakiya Jendayi conducted a detailed Fact Check comparing 42 challenged findings and rulings in the Statement of Decision against the trial transcripts, witness testimony, admitted evidence, and other portions of the court record.
The Fact Check concludes that, of those 42 challenged findings and rulings:
35 ARE FALSE.
6 ARE MISLEADING.
1 IS AN ERROR.
The Fact Check was reviewed by journalist Tanya Dennis of The Post Newspaper, who confirmed the results after reviewing the supporting record.
The purpose of publishing the Fact Check is not to ask the public simply to accept Jendayi’s conclusions.
The purpose is to make the underlying documents available so that readers can verify the claims for themselves.
For each challenged finding, the website will identify the court’s exact finding, the Fact Check classification, the relevant witness testimony or evidence, the exact transcript page or exhibit supporting the analysis, and a link to the underlying source document.
THE APPELLATE HISTORY
Jendayi hired Decker Law, who appealed the judgment.
On October 17, 2024, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment and certified a portion of its opinion for publication.
The published portion of Hamlin v. Jendayi is precedential in California and may be cited and relied upon in future trust and probate litigation.
The California Supreme Court denied review on January 15, 2025.
Jendayi subsequently sought review by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.
Those denials of discretionary review left the judgment undisturbed but did not constitute decisions on the merits of Jendayi’s claims challenging the factual accuracy of the Statement of Decision or the fairness of the proceedings.
THE LEGAL CHALLENGE CONTINUES
On April 10, 2026, Zakiya Jendayi filed an Amended Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside and Vacate the March 28, 2023 Judgment, together with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
The motion sought relief from the judgment that invalidated Dr. Head’s Trust and ordered all Trust assets transferred to the Special Administrator of Dr. Head’s estate.
A hearing was held before Judge Sandra K. Bean on May 8, 2026.
Petitioners attorney Daniel Leahy did not appear for the hearing.
The trial court denied the requested relief.
Jendayi is seeking appellate review of that ruling.
On June 26, 2026, Jendayi also filed a Notice of Preservation of Constitutional, Jurisdictional, Due Process, and Void-Judgment Issues for Appeal, formally identifying issues she seeks to preserve for appellate consideration.
Because further appellate proceedings are pending, the legal record in Hamlin v. Jendayi continues to develop.
This website will publish additional filings, briefs, court orders, hearing transcripts, and appellate decisions as they become available for public review.
WHY THIS WEBSITE EXISTS
This website exists to make the court record accessible to the public.
A California trial court invalidated Dr. Laura Dean Head’s Trust based on a finding of undue influence.
That judgment displaced the estate plan through which Dr. Head documented who she wanted to receive her property and who she intended to exclude.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and partially published its opinion, creating precedent that may affect future trust litigation.
The accuracy of the factual findings supporting such a judgment matters.
The integrity of the trial record matters.
The documented wishes of people who create estate plans matter.
The constitutional guarantee of a fair judicial process matters.
The public should have the opportunity to examine the documents.
READ THE STATEMENT OF DECISION.
EXAMINE THE 42-POINT FACT CHECK.
READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS.
REVIEW THE ADMITTED EVIDENCE.
FOLLOW THE CURRENT APPEAL.
COMPARE THE COURT’S FINDINGS WITH THE RECORD.
DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
THE TRUTH IS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS.
ASHE.
