(CN) - A brother got his fair share - 1 percent - from the $60 million sale of a family-owned printing company in Maine, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled, finding that the sibling failed to back up his claim that his stake was worth $3 million.     Robert Spenlinhauer sued his brothers, John and Stephen, along with their company, Spencer Press Inc., after the family sold the catalog maker to Donnelly & Sons Inc. in November 2005.
     Although each of the brothers initially had an equal cut of their deceased father's 99 percent interest in the company, "disputes" between the siblings prompted John and Stephen to buy out Robert's 33 percent interest in 1987, Associate Justice Peter Agnes writes.
     The brothers' mother, Georgia Spenlinhauer, named Robert, her caretaker, as her executor and bequeathed most of her assets to him, including her 1 percent interest in Spencer Press, according to the ruling.
     After their mother's death, John sought to verify the validity of Georgia's will, the ruling says, but the brother backed off after Robert agreed to go along with the sale and claimed he was happy with his $350,000 share.
     "However, in July of 2005, after the deadline for contesting Georgia's will had passed, Robert informed Stephen and John that he would not accept the pro rata share and instead demanded $3 million for the estate's one percent interest," Agnes found.
     Stephen's attorney told Robert that the brothers would opt for a cash-out merger "to obtain the estate's interest without Robert's consent," according to the ruling. Despite the warning, Robert rejected the brothers' final $750,000 offer for his minority interest in Spencer Press.
     On Oct. 15, 2005, the brothers sent Robert notice that Spencer Press had merged into Spencer Acquisition Inc. and that he would receive $375,000, the ruling says.
     One month later, Donnelly bought out the printing press company for $60 million, minus $30 million for Spencer Press' debt, the judge says.
     On appeal, Robert claimed that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the fair value of his shares, but the appellate court ruled that the trial court judge was not required to hold a separate hearing.
     "The trial judge plainly stated at the motion hearing ... that she was going to proceed on the basis of evidence presented at trial, unless Robert showed good reason to do otherwise," Agnes wrote.
     Although Robert presented evidence concerning the value of the shares during the trial, he did not claim he had more proof to present, the judge says.
     Furthermore, the trial court judge told the parties her decision was based on proof from the trial, addressed Robert's arguments and determined that the estate's shares were worth one percent of Donnelly's purchase price, which Robert stated was a "great price."