Key Takeaways
- A High Court judge has ruled that a will made by Johan de Rooy in 2021 was obtained by "undue influence" from his ex-wife, Jannette Coleman.
- De Rooy’s brother, Michael, challenged the will, claiming that Coleman had regained control over De Rooy while he was terminally ill and isolated him from his family and support network.
- The court found that Coleman had a strong and dominating personality and that De Rooy was "in thrall to her" and unable to oppose her when he was in her presence.
- The 2021 will was declared invalid, and De Rooy’s original will, which left his estate to his siblings, was upheld.
- Coleman has disputed the judgment and claimed that she was the victim of De Rooy’s controlling behavior.
Introduction to the Case
The case of Johan de Rooy and his ex-wife, Jannette Coleman, has been a long and complex one, with a recent ruling from the High Court at Whangārei finding that Coleman was the driving force behind changes to De Rooy’s will. According to the ruling, De Rooy met Coleman at church in 2005, and they married in 2006. However, their relationship was marked by allegations of violence and control, with De Rooy facing charges for violence against Coleman in 2011, which were ultimately dismissed at trial. De Rooy had also been diagnosed with multiple mental health conditions, including Asperger’s, Somatoform disorder, and Generalized Anxiety and Major Depressive Disorders.
The Changing of the Will
In 2011, De Rooy engaged a family lawyer and wrote a will that left his small estate to his siblings. However, nearly 10 years later, De Rooy made changes to his will, including allowing Coleman to occupy his unit in Whangārei for a reasonable period of time after his death. He also rescinded all his previous wills and fired his lawyer, revoked his brother’s power of attorney, and wrote Coleman into a new will. De Rooy’s former lawyer, Bridget Westenra, told the court that she was concerned about the changes to De Rooy’s will, as they contradicted his previous instructions and did not appear to have been written by him. Westenra visited De Rooy for a welfare check, but was told to leave by Coleman.
The Challenge to the Will
De Rooy’s brother, Michael, challenged the 2021 will, claiming that Coleman had regained control over De Rooy while he was terminally ill and isolated him from his family and support network. Michael had advised De Rooy to be cautious when changing his will and had expressed concerns about Coleman’s influence over him. In court, Coleman represented herself and claimed that she was a passive person who had supported De Rooy throughout their relationship, despite his erratic and violent behavior. She claimed that their divorce in 2014 was a "sham" and that they had remained in a loving relationship.
The Judgment
Justice Timothy Brewer described De Rooy as a "passive and gentle man" who was "in thrall to" Coleman. He found that Coleman had a strong and dominating personality and that De Rooy was unable to oppose her when he was in her presence. Justice Brewer also found that Coleman had instigated De Rooy’s cancellation of his enduring power of attorney, his dismissal of his lawyer, and his withdrawal from his church. Ultimately, Justice Brewer declared the 2021 will invalid, finding that it was obtained by undue influence and did not reflect De Rooy’s actual intentions.
Reaction to the Judgment
Michael de Rooy’s lawyer, Simon Davies-Colley, told NZME that the family was pleased that the court had seen what they saw all along, and that the evidence presented in court showed that De Rooy was essentially incapable of opposing his ex-wife. Coleman, on the other hand, disputed the judgment and claimed that she was the victim of De Rooy’s controlling behavior. She said that she was considering her options regarding an appeal and claimed that she had been compassionate and supportive of De Rooy despite his mental health issues. The case highlights the complexities of wills and estates, particularly when there are allegations of undue influence and control. It also raises questions about the role of family members and support networks in protecting the interests of vulnerable individuals.