He was a passive gentle man, according to the evidence; she a strong domineering personality. The High Court ruled invalid because of her undue influence Johan de Rooy’s 2021 will which left his Whangarei property to former spouse Alaine Jeanette Coleman, known variously as Jeanette, Ali and Alaine.
Justice Brewer described Ms Coleman as taking active steps in the years prior to Johan’s 2021 death to isolate Johan from former friends and acquaintances, blocking access by members of his church, instigating both the dismissal of his former lawyer and cancellation of a power of attorney in favour of his brother, and then arranging for Johan to sign a new will two months before his death, leaving all to her.
Ms Coleman represented herself at trial. Justice Brewer stated she did so with some skill, demonstrating a fierce intelligence and great determination.
One of Johan’s brothers challenged validity of the 2021 will. He claimed Ms Coleman is controlling and manipulative.
The High Court was told Johan and Alaine married in 2006. He was aged 54; she is the older by four years. Johan had lived with his mother until she went into care just prior to her death.
Their marriage was punctuated by Ms Coleman obtaining a protection order against Johan in 2008, then Johan made subject to a two year supervision order in 2009 on charges he pleaded guilty to, later claiming he ‘confessed’ to offences manufactured by Ms Coleman after she threatened to leave him, followed by a short period in prison for supposed breaches of the earlier protection order, with the District Court later dismissing her claims of violence.
Johan was later discovered to have earlier suffered an undiagnosed stroke.
This stroke led him to become dependent on Ms Coleman for aspects of his daily care. He later claimed that through her coercive behaviour she had him confess to immoral and illegal acts he had never committed.
They divorced in 2014.
Johan’s brother claimed in court that Ms Coleman later regained control of Johan’s life on learning he was terminally ill with brain cancer.
She claimed they had remained in regular contact since their 2014 divorce; that they had never really separated and that John had deceived his relatives about their ongoing relationship.
Changes to his will, leaving all to her, reflected his belated acknowledgment of their ongoing relationship, she claimed.
In the High Court, Justice Brewer stated Ms Coleman has a propensity for controlling the narrative, creating a formal record favourable to herself.
Her informal interaction in one instance with Johan’s former lawyer was followed up with an email painting the lawyer as an interfering meddler, accompanied by threats of a complaint being laid with the Law Society.
A glowing testimonial attesting to her ongoing care of Johan, drafted by Ms Coleman and signed by the vicar of their church, was coloured by the fact, unknown to the vicar, that the two were in fact divorced.
Justice Brewer commented that a short video shown at Johan’s funeral which featured him praising Ms Coleman did not have Johan looking directly at the camera; instead, Johan frequently looked off to one side, the inference being Ms Coleman was present, he said.
The 2021 will in favour of Ms Coleman was ruled invalid on grounds of undue influence. Justice Brewer granted probate to an earlier 2011 will, dividing Johan’s estate between his four siblings.
The estate’s major asset is a residential unit in Whangarei.
re Estate of Johan Frans de Rooy – High Court (13.11.25)
26.010