Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004

OR

For the transition period from                          to                         

Commission file number 0-14463

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(Former name, former address, and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes  x    No  ¨

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained in this Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I (the “Partnership”) other than historical facts may be considered forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such statements include, in particular, statements about our plans, strategies, and prospects and are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, as well as known and unknown risks, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected or anticipated. Therefore, such statements are not intended to be a guarantee of our performance in future periods. Such forward-looking statements can generally be identified by our use of forward-looking terminology such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “continue,” or other similar words. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date this report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Neither the Partnership nor the general partners make any representations or warranties (expressed or implied) about the accuracy of any such forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from any forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-Q, and we do not intend to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Any such forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors and are based on a number of assumptions involving judgments with respect to, among other things, future economic, competitive, and market conditions, all of which are difficult or impossible to predict accurately. To the extent that our assumptions differ from actual results, our ability to meet such forward-looking statements, including our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations; provide distributions to limited partners; and maintain the value of our real estate properties, may be significantly hindered. Following are some of the risks and uncertainties, although not all risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those presented in certain forward-looking statements:

General economic risks

Real estate risks

Page 2

Table of Contents

Other operational risks

Page 3

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 4

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

ASSETS

See accompanying notes.

Page 5

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

See accompanying notes.

Page 6

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

AND THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 (unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

Page 7

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I AND SUBSIDIARY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

See accompanying notes.

Page 8

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I AND SUBSIDIARY

CONDENSED NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MARCH 31, 2004 (unaudited)

Wells Real Estate Fund I (the “Partnership”) is a Georgia public limited partnership with Leo F. Wells, III and Wells Capital, Inc. (“Wells Capital”), a Georgia corporation, serving as its general partners (collectively, the “General Partners”). The Partnership was formed on April 26, 1984 for the purpose of acquiring, developing, constructing, owning, operating, improving, leasing, and managing income-producing commercial properties for investment purposes. The Partnership has two classes of limited partnership interests, Class A and Class B Units. Limited partners may vote to, among other things, (a) amend the partnership agreement, subject to certain limitations; (b) change the business purpose or investment objectives of the Partnership; and (c) add or remove a general partner. A majority vote on any of the above-described matters will bind the Partnership without the concurrence of the General Partners. Each limited partnership unit generally has equal voting rights regardless of class.

On September 6, 1984, the Partnership commenced a public offering of its limited partnership units pursuant to a Registration Statement filed on Form S-11 under the Securities Act of 1933. The Partnership terminated its offering on September 5, 1986, upon receiving and accepting gross proceeds of $35,321,000 for a total of 141,284 Class A and Class B limited partner units from 4,895 limited partners at $250 per unit.

As of March 31, 2004, the Partnership owned interests in the following two properties directly: (i) an approximately 27% condominium interest in Paces Pavilion, a medical office building located in Atlanta, Georgia, and (ii) Black Oak Plaza, a shopping center located in Knoxville, Tennessee.

During the periods presented, the Partnership also owned interests in the following two properties through the affiliated joint ventures listed below (the “Joint Ventures”):

On April 7, 2003, Fund I-II Tucker Associates sold the retail portion of Heritage Place, which comprises approximately 30% of the total premises, to an unrelated third party for a gross selling price of $3,400,000. As a result of this sale, net sales proceeds of approximately $1,665,000 and a gain of approximately $152,000 were allocated to the Partnership in the second quarter of 2003.

Each of the aforementioned properties was acquired on an all-cash basis. The investment objectives of each of the joint venture partners listed in the above table are substantially identical to those of the Partnership. For further information regarding the foregoing properties and joint ventures, refer to the report filed for the Partnership on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

Page 9

Table of Contents

The consolidated financial statements include the financial information of the Partnership and Wells-Baker Associates. The Partnership’s interest in Wells-Baker Associates was approximately 90% for each of the periods presented. All significant intercompany balances have been eliminated in consolidation. Minority interest represents Wells & Associates, Inc.’s interest in Wells-Baker Associates of approximately 10% for each of the periods presented.

The consolidated financial statements of the partnership have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X, and in accordance with such rules and regulations, do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for complete financial statements. In the opinion of the General Partners, the statements for the unaudited interim periods presented include all adjustments that are of a normal and recurring nature and necessary to fairly present the results for those periods. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of full-year results. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes included in the Partnership’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

For the purpose of determining allocations per the partnership agreement, net income is defined generally as net income recognized by the Partnership, excluding deductions for depreciation, amortization, and cost recovery and gain on the sale of assets. Net income, as defined, of the Partnership is generally allocated each year in the same proportions that net cash from operations is distributed to the partners. To the extent the Partnership’s net income in any year exceeds net cash from operations, it will be allocated 99% to the limited partners and 1% to the General Partners.

Net loss, depreciation, and amortization deductions for each fiscal year are allocated as follows: (a) 99% to the Class B limited partners and 1% to the General Partners until their capital accounts are reduced to zero; (b) then to any partner having a positive balance in his capital account in an amount not to exceed such positive balance; and (c) thereafter to the General Partners.

Under the partnership agreement, gain on the sale or exchange of the Partnership’s properties is allocated as follows: (a) first, to partners having negative capital accounts, if any, until all negative capital accounts have been restored to zero; (b) then to the limited partners in proportion to and to the extent of the excess of (i) each limited partner’s adjusted capital contribution, plus a cumulative 15% per annum return on his adjusted capital contribution (16% for investments made before December 31, 1984), less the sum of all prior distributions of cash flow from operations previously made to such limited partner, over (ii) such limited partner’s capital account balance as of the sale date; (c) then to the General Partners in proportion to and to the extent of the excess of (i) each General Partner’s adjusted capital contribution, less the sum of all prior distributions of cash flow from operations previously made to such General Partners, over (ii) such General Partner’s capital account balance as of the sale date; and (d) thereafter 85% to the limited partners and 15% to the General Partners.

Cash available for distribution, if available, is generally distributed quarterly to the limited partners as follows:

Page 10

Table of Contents

The Partnership does not have control over the operations of Fund I-II Tucker Associates; however, it does exercise significant influence. Accordingly, the Partnership’s investment in Fund I-II Tucker Associates is recorded using the equity method of accounting, whereby original investments are recorded at cost and subsequently adjusted for contributions, distributions, and net income (loss) attributable to the Partnership. For further information, refer to the report filed for the Partnership on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

The following information summarizes the operations of Fund I-II Tucker Associates for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively:

Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities and Equity

In May 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement No. 150 “Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity” (“FAS 150”), certain components of which were deferred by the FASB in October 2003 for an indefinite period. This statement establishes standards for classifying and measuring as liabilities certain financial instruments that embody obligations of the issuer and have characteristics of both liabilities and equity. FAS 150 requires, among other things, that a minority interest in a consolidated entity be classified as a liability and reported at settlement value if an unconditional obligation to exercise or redeem the minority interest exists. As Wells-Baker Associates is a finite life joint venture, the Partnership’s interest therein represents an unconditional obligation. Prior to its deferral, FAS 150 required this minority interest to be accounted for as a liability and reported at settlement value. Until further guidance is provided during the deferral period for FAS 150, this interest will continue to be

classified as minority interest in the Partnership’s financial statements. The settlement value of this minority interest is estimated to be approximately $76,498 at March 31, 2004.

Wells Management Company, Inc. (“Wells Management”), an affiliate of the General Partners, is entitled to compensation for the management and leasing of the Partnership’s properties owned through joint ventures equal to (a) 3% of the gross revenues for management and 3% of the gross revenues for leasing (aggregate maximum

Page 11

Table of Contents

of 6%) plus a separate fee for the one-time 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 or (b) in the case of commercial properties which are 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. Since the third quarter of 1998, the on-site management and leasing of Black Oak Plaza has been performed by an independent third-party property management company. The management company receives a 3% fee, and the balance due to Wells Management is accrued.

Wells Management has elected to defer the current receipt of management and leasing fees and initial lease-up costs due from the Partnership with respect to the properties owned by the Partnership directly and through its interest in joint ventures. Accordingly, such fees are expensed as incurred and comprise the due to affiliate balances presented in the accompanying balance sheets. As of March 31, 2004 and 2003, the Partnership owed aggregate management and leasing fees to Wells Management of $2,837,723 and $2,755,901, respectively, of which $2,074,126 and $2,015,445, respectively, are recorded as due to affiliate in the Partnership’s balance sheet for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $763,597 and $740,456, respectively, are due from the Partnership’s interest in Fund I-II Tucker Associates and, therefore, included in Investment in Joint Ventures in the consolidated balance sheets for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Wells Capital, one of the General Partners, and its affiliates perform certain administrative services for the Partnership, such as accounting, property management, and other partnership administration, and incur the related expenses. Such expenses are allocated among the various Wells Real Estate Funds based on time spent on each fund by individual administrative personnel. In the opinion of management, this allocation is a reasonable estimation of such expenses. The Partnership and the properties owned directly by the Partnership reimbursed Wells Capital $56,090 and $44,936 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, for these services and expenses. In addition, the Joint Ventures reimbursed Wells Capital $16,782 and $13,224 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, for these services and expenses.

The General Partners are also general partners of other Wells Real Estate Funds. As such, there may exist conflicts of interest where the General Partners in their capacity as general partners of other Wells Real Estate Funds may be in competition with the Partnership in connection with property acquisitions or for tenants in similar geographic markets.

Page 12

Table of Contents

On March 23, 2004, Peachtree Place was classified as held for sale. As such, the results of discontinued operations included in the accompanying statements of income for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 are summarized below:

On January 17, 2003, the Partnership was served with a putative class action by a limited partner holding Class B units, on behalf of all limited partners holding Class B units as of January 15, 2003, that seeks equitable relief with regard to the rights and obligations of all the Partnership’s limited partners and general partners under the partnership agreement. This litigation was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia (Roy Johnston v. Wells Real Estate Fund I, Civil Action No. 03-A00525-6) (the “Johnston Action”). The plaintiff in the Johnston Action generally alleges that the terms of the partnership agreement, as it relates to the allocation and distribution of net sale proceeds, are inconsistent with the original intent of the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the original intent was that limited partners holding Class B units would have a priority in payment of cash distributions of net sale proceeds to bring them even with the amount of cash distributions previously made to limited partners holding Class A units. The Johnston Action seeks, among other things, to have the Partnership’s partnership agreement equitably reformed consistent with the alleged original intent or, in the alternative, to have the investments made by limited partners holding Class B units equitably rescinded, and requests an injunction prohibiting the General Partners of the Partnership from distributing net sales proceeds until the resolution of the action.

On April 15, 2003, several limited partners holding Class A units filed a motion to intervene in the Johnston Action on the grounds that Mr. Johnston seeks relief that would be detrimental to limited partners holding Class A units, and that judgment in favor of Mr. Johnston would impair or impede the Class A unit holders’ ability to protect their interests. The Partnership then filed its answer, a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment and an interpleader action, and a motion to join the intervenor Class A unit holders and recast the action as one in interpleader. In its counterclaim, the Partnership seeks a declaratory judgment as to how net sale proceeds should be distributed as between limited partners holding Class A units and limited partners holding Class B units.

On June 27, 2003, the Court entered an order granting the motion to intervene previously filed by certain limited partners holding Class A units (the “A Unit Holder Defendants”). On July 29, 2003, the A Unit Holder

Page 13

Table of Contents

Defendants filed a cross-claim against the Partnership seeking that the Partnership be required and directed to disburse funds in accordance with the partnership documents.

On or about October 16, 2003, all of the A Unit Holder Defendants other than John Weiss (“Defendant Weiss”) filed a Dismissal Without Prejudice in the action. On or about that same date, Defendant Weiss filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. On November 3, 2003, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.

On or about December 8, 2003, the plaintiff in the Johnston action filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Action Claims. On or about December 10, 2003, Mr. Johnston filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to his Count II for Rescission.

The Court held a hearing on February 2, 2004. The Court took matters under advisement, and directed that all the proceedings be held in abeyance pending further order from the Court.

On or about March 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed by four individuals (the “plaintiffs”) against the Partnership, and our General Partners, Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, as well as Wells Investment Securities, Inc., and Wells Management (collectively, the “Wells Defendants”) (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2). The plaintiffs filed the Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding B units of the Partnership as of January 15, 2003. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that (a) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells Investment Securities, Inc., and the Partnership negligently and fraudulently made false statements and material omissions in connection with the initial sale (September 6, 1984 – September 5, 1986) of the B units to investors of the Partnership by making false statements and omissions in sales literature relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds to holders of B units, among other things; (b) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and the Partnership negligently and fraudulently misrepresented and concealed disclosure of, among other things, alleged discrepancies between such statements and provisions in the partnership agreement for a period of time in order to delay such investors from taking any legal, equitable or other action to protect their investments in the Partnership, among other reasons; (c) Mr. Wells and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of consent solicitations to the limited partners; and (d) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and the Partnership breached fiduciary duties to the limited partners.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following: rescission of all purported class members’ purchases of B units and an order for a full refund of all money paid for such units together with interest; judgment against the Wells Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive damages; a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void; judicial dissolution of the Partnership and the appointment of a receiver to wind up and terminate the partnership; and an award to plaintiffs of their attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

Page 14

Table of Contents

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Partnership’s accompanying financial statements and notes thereto.

Management believes that the Partnership would ideally operate through the course of the following five key life cycle phases. The time spent in each phase is dependent upon various economic, industry, market, and other internal/external factors. Some overlap naturally exists in the transition from one phase to the next.

The period during which the Partnership is raising capital through the sale and issuance of limited partner units to the public

The period during which the Partnership invests the capital raised during the fund-raising phase, less upfront fees, into the acquisition of real estate assets

The period during which real estate assets are owned and operated by the Partnership during the initial lease terms of the tenants

The period during which the leases in place at the time of acquisition expire and, thus, the Partnership expends time, effort, and funds to re-lease such space to existing and/or new tenants. Following the holding phase, the Partnership continues to own and operate the real estate assets, evaluate various options for disposition, and market the real estate assets for sale.

The period during which the Partnership sells its real estate investments and distributes net sales proceeds to the partners

Currently, management believes that the Partnership is straddling the positioning-for-sale phase and the disposition and liquidation phase. Upon investing all capital proceeds and exiting the investing phase, the Partnership owned interests in six properties, either directly or through interests in affiliated joint ventures. As of March 31, 2004, one property is greater than 90% leased, two properties are less than 70% leased, the remaining building of one property is under contract to be sold, and two properties and a portion of two other properties have been sold. Management will continue to pursue various re-leasing strategies for the space currently vacant at the properties in the Partnership’s portfolio during 2004.

As the Partnership evolves through the life cycle, our most significant risks and challenges continue to evolve concurrently. In our attempts to position our remaining properties for sale, we will continue to focus on re-leasing vacant space and space that may become vacant upon the expiration of our current leases. In doing so, we seek to maximize returns to the limited partners by negotiating long-term leases at market rental rates while attempting to minimize down time, re-leasing expenditures, ongoing property level costs, and portfolio costs. As we focus on the disposition and liquidation phase, we have shifted our attention to locating suitable acquirers,

Page 15

Table of Contents

negotiating purchase and sale contracts that will attempt to maximize the total return to the limited partners, and minimize contingencies and our post-closing involvement with the acquirer.

In 2004, net loss increased primarily as a result of incurring substantial additional legal costs in connection with defending the litigation discussed in Part II, Item 1, of this report. Cash flows decreased in 2004, primarily due to legal fees incurred in 2004.

Substantially all of our operating revenues are generated from the operations of the properties in the Partnership’s portfolio. On a quarterly basis, we deduct the expenses related to the recurring operations of the properties and the portfolio from such revenues and assess the amount of the remaining cash flows that will be required to fund known re-leasing costs and other capital improvements or other major expenses such as legal fees required in connection with litigation. Any residual operating cash flows are considered available for distribution to the limited partners and are generally paid quarterly. As further outlined in section (c) below, we anticipate using a portion of our future operating cash flows to fund litigation costs (see Part II, Item 1) and the costs necessary to re-lease currently vacant space in the properties within the Partnership’s portfolio.

Industry Factors

Our results continue to be impacted by a number of factors influencing the real estate industry.

General Economic and Real Estate Market Commentary

The U.S. economy appears to be recovering; however, thus far it has been a jobless recovery, and because of this, real estate office fundamentals may not improve until employment growth strengthens. The economy has shown signs of growth recently, as companies have recommenced making investments in new employees. Job growth is the most significant demand driver for office markets. The jobless recovery has resulted in a demand deficit for office space. In general, the real estate office market lags behind the overall economic recovery and, therefore, recovery is not expected until late 2004 or 2005 at the earliest, and then will vary by market.

Overall, real estate market fundamentals are weak; however, capital continues to flow into the asset class. This increased capital drives the prices of many properties upward and investor returns downward. There is a significant pricing differential in underwriting parameters between well-leased assets with credit tenants and those with either existing vacancies or substantial near-term tenant rollover. Properties with long-term leases to strong credit tenants have seen an increase in value.

The office market has significant excess space. Vacancy levels are believed to be at or near their peak. There is some encouraging news, new construction continues to taper off, coming to a complete halt in many markets. As a result of the slowdown in new construction and the modest decline in sublease space, net absorption has turned positive, although barely, at year-end. Many industry professionals believe office market fundamentals are bottoming-out; however, a recovery cannot be expected until job growth and corresponding demand for office space increases.

Wells Real Estate Funds with Current Vacancy or Near-term Rollover Exposure

Real estate funds, such as the Partnership, that contain properties with current vacancies or near-term tenant rollover may face a challenging leasing environment. The properties within these funds will face lower rents and higher concession packages to the tenants in order to re-lease vacant space.

From a valuation standpoint, it is generally preferable to either renew an existing tenant lease or re-lease the property prior to marketing it for sale. Generally, buyers will heavily discount their offering price to compensate for the existing or pending vacancies.

Page 16

Table of Contents

Gross Revenues

Gross revenues of the Partnership were $283,787 and $377,555 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The 2004 decrease, as compared to 2003, resulted primarily from (i) a decline in interest income, and (ii) the corresponding decline in equity in income of Joint Ventures described below.

Equity in Income of Joint Ventures

Gross Revenues of Joint Ventures

Gross revenues of Joint Ventures decreased in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due to a decrease in occupancy at the office portion of Heritage Place during 2004.

Expenses of Joint Ventures

Expenses of Joint Ventures increased in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due to increased operational expenses at the office portion of Heritage Place.

Equity in Income of Joint Ventures from Discontinued Operations

Equity in income of Joint Ventures from discontinued operations decreased for the three months ended March 31, 2004, as compared to the same period in 2003 due to the sale of the retail portion of Heritage Place on April 7, 2003.

As a result of all of the aforementioned factors, the Partnership recorded equity in loss from Joint Ventures of $(14,805) during the three months ended March 31, 2004 compared to equity in income from Joint Ventures of $47,940 for the three months ended March 31, 2003.

Expenses of the Partnership

Expenses of the Partnership were $630,445 and $347,636 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The 2004 increase, as compared to 2003, resulted primarily from a substantial increase in legal costs related to defending the litigation discussed in Part II, Item 1, of this report.

Net (Loss) Income of the Partnership

As a result of the aforementioned factors, net (loss) income of the Partnership was $(344,468) and $29,075 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Page 17

Table of Contents

Discontinued Operations

On March 23, 2004, Peachtree Place was classified as held for sale. As such, the results of discontinued operations included in the accompanying statements of income for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 are summarized below:

Cash Flows From Operating Activities

Net cash flows from operating activities were $(262,821) and $98,481 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The 2004 decrease from 2003 resulted primarily from the corresponding increases in Partnership expenses as described above.

Cash Flows From Investing Activities

Net cash flows from investing activities were $39,980 and $129,745 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The 2004 decrease, as compared to 2003, resulted primarily from the decrease in distributions received from Fund I-II Tucker Associates as a result of the sale of the retail portion of Heritage Place in 2003.

Cash Flows From Financing Activities

Net cash flows from financing activities were $0 and $(253,021) for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. For the 2003 period, net cash flows from financing activities were solely comprised of operating distributions paid to limited partners. There were no such distributions in 2004.

Distributions

The Partnership declared distributions of net cash from operations to the limited partners holding Class A Units of $0.00 and $2.50 per unit for the quarters ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively. Cash flows otherwise distributable to the limited partners have been reserved for the first quarter of 2004 in order to fund additional legal costs anticipated in connection with the litigation discussed in Part II, Item 1., and lease-up costs anticipated with increasing occupancy of Black Oak Plaza and the remaining office portion of Heritage Place. In accordance with the partnership agreement, no distributions were made to limited partners holding Class B Units.

Page 18

Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

On March 23, 2004, Wells-Baker Associates entered into an agreement (the “Agreement”) to sell the remaining building at the Peachtree Place property located in Norcross, Georgia to an unrelated third party for a gross sale price of $1,030,000. The extended due diligence period under the Agreement expired April 27, 2004, and this sale is expected to close during May 2004, however there are no assurances that this sale will close.

Sales Proceeds

The Partnership’s share of the net proceeds generated from the sales of the Cherokee Commons, the Crowe’s Crossing, a portion of Peachtree Place, and the retail portion of Heritage Place have not been distributed. The Partnership has calculated the amount of net sales proceeds available for distribution to limited partners out of the aggregate of approximately $10,900,000 in proceeds generated to date from the sales of certain real estate assets. In accordance with Section 9.3 of the partnership agreement, except for reinvestment of net sale proceeds as provided in Section 11.3(g) (as amended), and after the payment or reserves allowed for Partnership debts and liabilities (including without limitation to management fees owed to Wells Management in the amount of approximately $2,800,000), and after the establishment of reserves which the General Partners, in their sole discretion, deem reasonably necessary, as of February 20, 2004, there were net sales proceeds in the amount of

approximately $7,000,000 available for distribution to limited partners, which sum is being held in a separate, interest-bearing bank account. As more fully set forth therein, Section 9.3 of the partnership agreement provides that the net sales proceeds are to be distributed “to each Partner in accordance with the positive balance in his Capital Account as of the date of distribution under this Section 9.3 (after allocation of the Gain on Sale as provided in Section 10.4 hereof).” Due to pending litigation, however, the Partnership is not in a position to distribute net sales proceeds until final resolution of the litigation described in Part II, Item 1.

Capital Resources

The Partnership is an investment vehicle formed for the purpose of acquiring, owning, and operating income-producing real properties and has invested all of its funds available for investment. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the Partnership will acquire interests in any additional properties, except potentially for the acquisition of other interests in Paces Pavilion. Other than those mentioned above, the General Partners are unaware of any specific need requiring capital resources.

The Partnership and its joint ventures have entered into agreements with Wells Capital and its affiliates, whereby the Partnership or its joint ventures pay certain fees or reimbursements to Wells Capital or its affiliates for property management and leasing fees, and reimbursement of operating and administrative costs. See Note 4 to the Partnership’s financial statements included in this report for a discussion of the various related-party transactions, agreements and fees.

The real estate market has not been affected significantly by inflation in the past three years due to the relatively low inflation rate. However, there are provisions in the majority of tenant leases, which would protect the Partnership from the impact of inflation. These provisions include reimbursement billings for operating expense pass-through charges, real estate tax, and insurance reimbursements on a per-square-foot basis, or in some cases, annual reimbursement of operating expenses above a certain per-square-foot allowance. There is no assurance, however, that the Partnership would be able to replace existing leases with new leases at higher base rental rates.

Page 19

Table of Contents

The Partnership’s accounting policies have been established to conform with GAAP. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to use judgment in the application of accounting policies, including making estimates and assumptions. These judgments affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the dates of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. If management’s judgment or interpretation of the facts and circumstances relating to various transactions had been different, it is possible that different accounting policies would have been applied, thus resulting in a different presentation of the financial statements. Additionally, other companies may utilize different estimates that may impact comparability of the Partnership’s results of operations to those of companies in similar businesses.

Below is a discussion of the accounting policies that management considers to be critical in that they may require complex judgment in their application or require estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain.

Investment in Real Estate Assets

Management is required to make subjective assessments as to the useful lives of its depreciable assets. Management considers the period of future benefit of the asset to determine the appropriate useful lives. These assessments have a direct impact on net income. The estimated useful lives of the Partnership’s assets by class are as follows:

In the event that management uses inappropriate useful lives or methods for depreciation, the Partnership’s net income would be misstated.

Valuation of Real Estate Assets

Management continually monitors events and changes in circumstances that could indicate that the carrying amounts of the real estate assets in which the Partnership has an ownership interest, either directly or through investments in joint ventures, may not be recoverable. When indicators of potential impairment are present which indicate that the carrying amounts of real estate assets may not be recoverable, management assesses the recoverability of the real estate assets by determining whether the carrying value of the real estate assets will be recovered through the undiscounted future operating cash flows expected from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. In the event that such expected undiscounted future cash flows do not exceed the carrying value, management adjusts the real estate assets to the fair value and recognizes an impairment loss. Management has determined that there has been no impairment in the carrying value of real estate assets held by the Partnership as of March 31, 2004.

Projections of expected future cash flows require management to estimate future market rental income amounts subsequent to the expiration of current lease agreements, property operating expenses, discount rates, the number of months it takes to re-lease the property, and the number of years the property is held for investment. The use of inappropriate assumptions in the future cash flow analysis would result in an incorrect assessment of the property’s future cash flows and fair value, and could result in the overstatement of the carrying value of real estate assets held by the Joint Ventures and net income of the Partnership.

Page 20

Table of Contents

Since the Partnership does not borrow any money, make any foreign investments, or invest in any market risk-sensitive instruments, it is not subject to risks relating to interest rates, foreign current exchange rate fluctuations, or the other market risks contemplated by Item 305 of Regulation S-K.

The Partnership carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management of Wells Capital, the corporate general partner of the Partnership, including the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Based upon that evaluation, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective.

There were no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

On January 17, 2003, the Partnership was served with a putative class action by a limited partner holding Class B units, on behalf of all limited partners holding Class B units as of January 15, 2003, that seeks equitable relief with regard to the rights and obligations of all the Partnership’s limited partners and general partners under the partnership agreement. This litigation was filed in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia (Roy Johnston v. Wells Real Estate Fund I, Civil Action No. 03-A00525-6) (the “Johnston Action”). The plaintiff in the Johnston Action generally alleges that the terms of the partnership agreement, as it relates to the allocation and distribution of net sale proceeds, are inconsistent with the original intent of the parties. The plaintiff alleges that the original intent was that limited partners holding Class B units would have a priority in payment of cash distributions of net sale proceeds to bring them even with the amount of cash distributions previously made to limited partners holding Class A units. The Johnston Action seeks, among other things, to have the Partnership’s partnership agreement equitably reformed consistent with the alleged original intent or, in the alternative, to have the investments made by limited partners holding Class B units equitably rescinded, and requests an injunction prohibiting the General Partners of the Partnership from distributing net sales proceeds until the resolution of the action.

On April 15, 2003, several limited partners holding Class A units filed a motion to intervene in the Johnston Action on the grounds that Mr. Johnston seeks relief that would be detrimental to limited partners holding Class A units, and that judgment in favor of Mr. Johnston would impair or impede the Class A unit holders’ ability to protect their interests. The Partnership then filed its answer, a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment and an interpleader action, and a motion to join the intervenor Class A unit holders and recast the action as one in interpleader. In its counterclaim, the Partnership seeks a declaratory judgment as to how net sale proceeds should be distributed as between limited partners holding Class A units and limited partners holding Class B units.

On June 27, 2003, the Court entered an order granting the motion to intervene previously filed by certain limited partners holding Class A units (the “A Unit Holder Defendants”). On July 29, 2003, the A Unit Holder

Page 21

Table of Contents

Defendants filed a cross-claim against the Partnership seeking that the Partnership be required and directed to disburse funds in accordance with the partnership documents.

On or about October 16, 2003, all of the A Unit Holder Defendants other than John Weiss (“Defendant Weiss”) filed a Dismissal Without Prejudice in the action. On or about that same date, Defendant Weiss filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. On November 3, 2003, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.

On or about December 8, 2003, the plaintiff in the Johnston action filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify Class Action Claims. On or about December 10, 2003, Mr. Johnston filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to his Count II for Rescission.

The Court held a hearing on February 2, 2004. The Court took matters under advisement, and directed that all the proceedings be held in abeyance pending further order from the Court.

On or about March 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) was filed by four individuals (the “plaintiffs”) against the Partnership, and our General Partners, Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, as well as Wells Investment Securities, Inc., and Wells Management (collectively, the “Wells Defendants”) (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2). The plaintiffs filed the Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding B units of the Partnership as of January 15, 2003. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that (a) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells Investment Securities, Inc., and the Partnership negligently and fraudulently made false statements and material omissions in connection with the initial sale (September 6, 1984 – September 5, 1986) of the B units to investors of the Partnership by making false statements and omissions in sales literature relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds to holders of B units, among other things; (b) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and the Partnership negligently and fraudulently misrepresented and concealed disclosure of, among other things, alleged discrepancies between such statements and provisions in the partnership agreement for a period of time in order to delay such investors from taking any legal, equitable or other action to protect their investments in the Partnership, among other reasons; (c) Mr. Wells and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of consent solicitations to the limited partners; and (d) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and the Partnership breached fiduciary duties to the limited partners.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following: rescission of all purported class members’ purchases of B units and an order for a full refund of all money paid for such units together with interest; judgment against the Wells Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive damages; a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void; judicial dissolution of the Partnership and the appointment of a receiver to wind up and terminate the partnership; and an award to plaintiffs of their attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

Page 22

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Page 23

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

TO FIRST QUARTER FORM 10-Q

OF

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND I