Related-Party Transactions

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Related Party Transactions [Abstract]

Related Party Transactions Disclosure [Text Block]

RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS

Management and Leasing Fees

The Partnership entered into a property management and leasing agreement with Wells Management Company, Inc. (“Wells Management”), an affiliate of the General Partners. In accordance with the property management and leasing agreement, Wells Management receives compensation for the management and leasing of the Partnership’s properties owned through the Joint Venture, equal to (a) 3% for management services and 3% for leasing services of the gross revenues collected monthly, plus a separate fee for the one-time initial lease-up of newly constructed properties in an amount not to exceed the fee customarily charged in arm’s-length transactions by others rendering similar services in the same geographic area for similar properties, which is assessed periodically based on market studies, or (b) in the case of commercial properties leased on a long-term net basis (ten or more years), 1% of the gross revenues except for initial leasing fees equal to 3% of the gross revenues over the first five years of the lease term. Management and leasing fees are paid by the Joint Venture and, accordingly, are included in equity in income of joint venture in the accompanying statements of operations. The Partnership’s share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred through the Joint Venture and payable to Wells Management is$18,217 and $19,817 for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $54,503 and $52,806 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Administrative Reimbursements

Wells Capital, the corporate general partner of Wells Partners, one of the Partnership’s general partners, and Wells Management perform certain administrative services for the Partnership, relating to accounting and other partnership administration, and incur the related expenses. Such expenses are allocated among other entities affiliated with the General Partners based on estimates of the amount of time dedicated to each fund by individual administrative personnel. In the opinion of the General Partners, this allocation is a reasonable estimation of such expenses. The Partnership incurred administrative expenses of $21,917 and $25,700 payable to Wells Capital and Wells Management for the three months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and $63,261 and $80,776 for the nine months ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In addition, Wells Capital and Wells Management pay for certain operating expenses of the Partnership (“bill-backs”) directly and invoice the Partnership for the reimbursement thereof on a quarterly basis. As presented in the accompanying balance sheets, due to affiliates as of September 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010 represents administrative reimbursements and bill-backs due to Wells Capital and/or Wells Management.

Assertion of Legal Action Against Related-Parties

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III and Wells Capital, the Partnership’s General Partners; Wells Management, the Partnership’s property manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction.

On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT.

On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal immediately the Court’s order granting the motion for class certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009. On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009.

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. The Court ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted “material” information required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions of fact that must be determined at trial. A trial date has not been set.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this action. Any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully manage the Partnership’s operations and portfolio of investments.