��һ�ǿ�����

A terminally ill man with Asperger’s signed his meagre possessions over to his ex-wife, whom a judge has found he was incapable of opposing.

Johan de Rooy, known as John to his family, was described as a gentle man who was deeply religious and completely dependent on his ex-wife.

Months after undergoing surgery for brain cancer and in the process of dying from the disease, De Rooy fired his long-time lawyer by email. He then cut his siblings out of his will and instead bequeathed his modest estate to Alaine Janette Coleman.

It was a move that raised his family’s suspicions, so his brother Michael challenged the validity of the new will in court.

Now, in a recently released ruling from the High Court at Whangārei, a judge has found that Coleman was the driving force behind the changes to his will and that it was obtained by “undue influence”.

According to that ruling, De Rooy was the eldest of five siblings, deeply religious and met Coleman at church before they married in 2006.

In 2005, De Rooy had a full frontal lobe stroke, and by 2009 had been diagnosed with multiple mental health conditions, including Asperger’s, Somatoform disorder, as well as Generalised Anxiety and Major Depressive Disorders.

Then in 2011 De Rooy faced charges for violence against Coleman, but those were ultimately dismissed at trial.

Johan (John) de Rooy. Photo / Supplied

However, the same year De Rooy engaged a family lawyer and wrote a will that left his small estate to his siblings. He also made a number of allegations about his then-wife, claiming that she was controlling, manipulative and had assaulted him on multiple occasions.

“I currently feel very vulnerable to Jannette’s overtures and attempts to manipulate and influence me,” he said in a note to his lawyer.

According to the judgment, the pair officially divorced in 2014.

Changing of the will

Nearly 10 years later, De Rooy phoned his lawyer’s office and made a small change to his will about his burial instructions, the day before he was due to undergo brain surgery.

Five days after the surgery, he called again and made more changes, including that Coleman could occupy his unit in Whangārei for a reasonable period of time after his death, then it was to be sold.

Then, in April of that same year, he rescinded all his wills prior to the newest one as of 2021, and fired his lawyer, revoked another of his brothers as power of attorney and wrote Coleman into a new will.

“On Saturday, May 1, 2021, I received an email from John. I was concerned about the contents of the email. It contradicted many of the instructions John had previously given to me, and it did not appear to have been written by him,” his former lawyer, Bridget Westenra, told the court.

De Rooy then followed up with another email which said: “I need to clear my conscience, therefore I want to write to you about the truth. (1) I wanted my wife, Alaine (Ali) Jannette to have her name on the title for my unit. She was NOT trying to take my unit.”

Westenra then visited him for a welfare check and was told to leave by Coleman.

In June 2021, Coleman arranged for De Rooy to be assessed for mental acuity and a doctor subsequently issued a medical certificate declaring that he “has full capacity to make informed decisions on his affairs relating to personal welfare, and property”.

Two days later, a new will was made.

However, the records of this new will were described by Justice Timothy Brewer as “sketchy” with only a letter of engagement and a will instruction form recorded with the new lawyers.

That new lawyer had not met De Rooy before and his firm had acted for Coleman. He also made no inquiries about previous wills or if there might be other people with a claim on his estate.

De Rooy then died alone at his unit in Whangārei on or about August 16, 2021.

The challenge

In court, De Rooy’s brother Michael claimed that Coleman regained control over her ex-husband while he was terminally ill, isolated him from his family and support network before getting him to change his will.

A year before he made a new will De Rooy emailed his brother saying he was going to make some changes. Michael responded, advising caution when his brother said he was going to change law firms.

“Why on earth would you need to change solicitors, and I hope not on someone else’s suggestion,” Michael said.

The challenge to De Rooy's 2021 will took place in the High Court at Whangārei earlier this year. Photo / Michael Cunningham

Michael said that De Rooy’s will needed to be clear, as there would likely be some conflict over his estate and he was also concerned that Coleman was likely reading his emails.

“You are allowing someone who does not trust you a privileged position in your home, foolhardy and just stupid,” he said.

“Can you not see the need to distance yourself from this? How dangerous the situation is to yourself and others.”

De Rooy replied, “yes, I see it now more clearly than ever before ... now comes the part where I figure out how to extricate myself from the position that I have put myself into”.

Coleman, a retired school teacher, represented herself and told the court she was a passive person who had supported De Rooy throughout their relationship, although she was the victim of his erratic and, at times, violent behaviour.

She claimed that their divorce in 2014 was a “sham” to placate De Rooy’s family, who she says were disapproving of her, and that at all times they were in a loving relationship, albeit with periods of “ups and downs”.

Coleman described De Rooy’s first lawyer as a “meddler” and that it was her ex-husband’s own decision to fire her, and revoke the power of attorney for his brother Robert, stop attending church and to make the 2021 will.

Coleman’s case was that De Rooy led a life of deception, and that to his family, he presented as being separated from her, however, in actuality, they shared their lives, cohabited and were in a loving relationship and in 2021 chose to reflect that in his will.

Dependence and undue influence

Justice Timothy Brewer described De Rooy as a “passive and gentle man” with a modest estate, with his only asset being a unit in Whangārei of no great value.

In his judgment, Justice Brewer said that Coleman had a strong and dominating personality and that her ex-husband was “in thrall to her”.

“I find that when he became terminally ill, Johan de Rooy became completely dependent on Mrs Coleman. Mrs Coleman took active steps to ensure that,” he said.

Justice Timothy Brewer described De Rooy as being in Coleman's "thrall". Photo / ��һ�ǿ�����

“It was she who instigated Johan de Rooy’s cancellation of the enduring power of attorney to Robert de Rooy, his dismissal of Ms Westenra as his lawyer, his withdrawal from his church, and ultimately, the making of the 2021 will.”

In her evidence to the court, Coleman had produced a video of De Rooy in which he praises his ex-wife and accepts he didn’t treat her well. Justice Brewer said it was noticeable in the video that De Rooy’s eyes were repeatedly looking off camera to where he assumed Coleman was present.

“In short, I find that Johan de Rooy was incapable of opposing Mrs Coleman when he was in her presence,” Justice Brewer said. “I do not accept that any of Johan de Rooy’s ‘confessions’ and communications with others while he was in Mrs Coleman’s presence represent his genuine views.”

Justice Brewer said that Coleman wanted De Rooy’s home and viewed it as belonging to her, but knew she wouldn’t inherit it under the instructions in his old will.

Ultimately, Justice Brewer found that the 2021 will was obtained by undue influence, and didn’t reflect De Rooy’s actual intentions. As such, he declared the new will invalid.

Michael de Rooy’s lawyer, Simon Davies-Colley, told ��һ�ǿ����� on behalf of his client that the family took the matter to court because they wanted the story to be told.

“He was dying and couldn’t make his wishes known, so they took it upon themselves after his death,” Davies-Colley said.

“They’re pleased that the court has seen what they saw all along.”

Davies-Colley said that the evidence presented in court showed that De Rooy was essentially incapable of opposing his ex-wife, and “couldn’t refuse her”.

As for De Rooy’s brothers, Davies-Colley said they were relieved that his true voice had been acknowledged by the court, and that a nearly four year-long court battle had come to an end.

Coleman told ��һ�ǿ����� she disputed the judgment and claimed that it was De Rooy who was controlling her over the years.

“He was actually controlling me. It was absolutely the opposite,” Coleman claimed.

“My view is that I was compassionate to Johan in spite of the terrible experiences I had.

“I’m a person who supported him, in spite of things that happened, I was aware he was mentally ill and therefore it was easy to be forgiving and continue to help him as he asked me to.”

Coleman said she wasn’t able to pay a lawyer to represent her in court and claimed she’d had a brain injury last year, and didn’t know the court rules.

She disputed Justice Brewer’s assertion that she was “fiercely intelligent” and said that was mentioned to help form the narrative that she had been controlling De Rooy.

“I’m just an old lady who was wanting to keep her home.”

Coleman said she was considering her options regarding appeal.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū, covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for ��һ�ǿ����� since 2022.