Related-Party Transactions	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
Related-Party Transactions	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 $6,052 and $13,707 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 $18,721 and $25,253 payable to Wells Capital and Wells Management for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 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 Office Realty Trust, Inc. ("Piedmont REIT"), an entity affiliated with the Partnership's General Partners, 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, one of the Partnership's General Partners; Wells Capital, the corporate general partner of Wells Partners, the Partnership's General Partner; 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 alleged 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 sought, 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. Subsequent to the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff said it intended to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million plus prejudgment interest. 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. On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate their subjective views, considerations, and observations during the trial of the case. On February 23, 2012, the Court granted several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by the plaintiff. On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 22, 2012, Piedmont REIT announced the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on October 12, 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9 million in cash by Piedmont REIT and its insurer. On December 31, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court. On January 2, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement and the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of the proposed settlement was given to the class. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 18, 2013, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiff. Operational Dependency The Partnership has engaged Wells Capital and Wells Management to provide certain essential services, including supervision of the management and leasing of its properties, asset acquisition and disposition services, as well as other administrative responsibilities, including accounting services and investor communications and relations. These agreements are terminable by either party upon 60 days' written notice. As a result of these relationships, the Partnership's operations are dependent upon Wells Capital and Wells Management. Wells Capital and Wells Management are owned and controlled by WREF. The operations of Wells Capital, Wells Investment Securities, Inc., Wells Management, Wells Core Office Income REIT Advisory Services, LLC, and their affiliates represent substantially all of the business of WREF. Accordingly, we focus on the financial condition of WREF when assessing the financial condition of Wells Capital and Wells Management. In the event that WREF were to become unable to meet its obligations as they become due, we might be required to find alternative service providers. Future net income generated by WREF will be largely dependent upon the amount of fees earned by Wells Capital and Wells Management based on, among other things, the level of investor proceeds raised from the sale of common stock for certain WREF-sponsored programs and the volume of future acquisitions and dispositions of real estate assets by WREF-sponsored programs, as well as distribution income earned from its holdings of common stock of Piedmont REIT, which was acquired in connection with the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction. As of March 31, 2013, the Partnership has no reason to believe that WREF does not have access to adequate liquidity and capital resources, including cash flow generated from operations, cash on hand, other investments, and borrowing capacity, necessary to meet its current and future obligations as they become due. Modifying service agreements between WREF, or its affiliates, and the Partnership, or other WREF-sponsored programs, could impact WREF's future net income and future access to liquidity and capital resources. For example, a large portion of WREF's income is derived under agreements with Columbia Property Trust, Inc. ("Columbia"), formerly known as Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. Effective February 28, 2013, Columbia transitioned to self-management and indicated that it does not expect to rely on WREF for the same level of services beyond December 31, 2013. As such, WREF does not expect to receive significant compensation from Columbia beyond December 31, 2013.

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 $6,052 and $13,707 for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 $18,721 and $25,253 payable to Wells Capital and Wells Management for the three months ended March 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 March 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 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 Office Realty Trust, Inc. ("Piedmont REIT"), an entity affiliated with the Partnership's General Partners, 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, one of the Partnership's General Partners; Wells Capital, the corporate general partner of Wells Partners, the Partnership's General Partner; 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 alleged 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 sought, 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. Subsequent to the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff said it intended to seek monetary damages of approximately $159 million plus prejudgment interest.

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.

On November 17, 2011, the Court issued rulings granting several of the plaintiff's motions in limine to prohibit the defendants from introducing certain evidence, including evidence of the defendants' reliance on advice from their outside legal and financial advisors, and limiting the defendants' ability to relate their subjective views, considerations, and observations during the trial of the case. On February 23, 2012, the Court granted several of the defendants' motions, including a motion for reconsideration regarding a motion the plaintiff had filed seeking exclusion of certain evidence impacting damages, and motions seeking exclusion of certain evidence proposed to be submitted by the plaintiff.

On March 20, 2012, the Court granted the defendants leave to file a motion for summary judgment. On April 5, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the defendants. On October 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 22, 2012, Piedmont REIT announced the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on October 12, 2012. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiff will dismiss the appeal and release all defendants from liability in exchange for total payment of $4.9 million in cash by Piedmont REIT and its insurer. On December 31, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court. On January 2, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement and the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of the proposed settlement was given to the class. On March 21, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 18, 2013, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice, and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses to the plaintiff.

Operational Dependency

The Partnership has engaged Wells Capital and Wells Management to provide certain essential services, including supervision of the management and leasing of its properties, asset acquisition and disposition services, as well as other administrative responsibilities, including accounting services and investor communications and relations. These agreements are terminable by either party upon 60 days' written notice. As a result of these relationships, the Partnership's operations are dependent upon Wells Capital and Wells Management.

Wells Capital and Wells Management are owned and controlled by WREF. The operations of Wells Capital, Wells Investment Securities, Inc., Wells Management, Wells Core Office Income REIT Advisory Services, LLC, and their affiliates represent substantially all of the business of WREF. Accordingly, we focus on the financial condition of WREF when assessing the financial condition of Wells Capital and Wells Management. In the event that WREF were to become unable to meet its obligations as they become due, we might be required to find alternative service providers.

Future net income generated by WREF will be largely dependent upon the amount of fees earned by Wells Capital and Wells Management based on, among other things, the level of investor proceeds raised from the sale of common stock for certain WREF-sponsored programs and the volume of future acquisitions and dispositions of real estate assets by WREF-sponsored programs, as well as distribution income earned from its holdings of common stock of Piedmont REIT, which was acquired in connection with the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction. As of March 31, 2013, the Partnership has no reason to believe that WREF does not have access to adequate liquidity and capital resources, including cash flow generated from operations, cash on hand, other investments, and borrowing capacity, necessary to meet its current and future obligations as they become due. Modifying service agreements between WREF, or its affiliates, and the Partnership, or other WREF-sponsored programs, could impact WREF's future net income and future access to liquidity and capital resources. For example, a large portion of WREF's income is derived under agreements with Columbia Property Trust, Inc. ("Columbia"), formerly known as Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. Effective February 28, 2013, Columbia transitioned to self-management and indicated that it does not expect to rely on WREF for the same level of services beyond December 31, 2013. As such, WREF does not expect to receive significant compensation from Columbia beyond December 31, 2013.