Related-Party Transactions	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
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 Ventures, 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 (10 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 Ventures and, accordingly, are included in equity in income (loss) of joint ventures in the accompanying statements of operations. The Partnership's share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred through the Joint Ventures and payable to Wells Management is $11,307 and $15,455 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, 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 $23,481 and $25,313 payable to Wells Capital and Wells Management for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, 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, 2012 and December 31, 2011 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, 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 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. Since the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it intends 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. The suit has been removed from the Court's trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court. 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 April 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court. 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. Although WREF believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17 defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management. The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse impact on WREF's financial results, financial condition, or liquidity. 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 and Wells Management represent substantially all of the business of WREF. Accordingly, the Partnership focuses 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, the Partnership 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 (see "Assertion of Legal Action Against Related-Parties" above). As of March 31, 2012, 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.

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 Ventures, 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 (10 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 Ventures and, accordingly, are included in equity in income (loss) of joint ventures in the accompanying statements of operations. The Partnership's share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred through the Joint Ventures and payable to Wells Management is $11,307 and $15,455 for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, 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 $23,481 and $25,313 payable to Wells Capital and Wells Management for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, 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, 2012 and December 31, 2011 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, 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 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. Since the filing of the second amended complaint, the plaintiff has said it intends 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. The suit has been removed from the Court's trial calendar pending resolution of a request for interlocutory appellate review of certain legal rulings made by the Court.

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 April 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed its response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On May 7, 2012, the defendants filed their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court.

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. Although WREF believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims of liability and damages in these actions, WREF is unable at this time to predict the outcome of these actions or reasonably estimate a range of damages, or how any liability and responsibility for damages might be allocated among the 17 defendants in the action, which includes 11 defendants not affiliated with Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, or Wells Management. The ultimate resolution of these matters could have a material adverse impact on WREF's financial results, financial condition, or liquidity.

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 and Wells Management represent substantially all of the business of WREF. Accordingly, the Partnership focuses 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, the Partnership 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 (see "Assertion of Legal Action Against Related-Parties" above). As of March 31, 2012, 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.