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.
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.
