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 June 30, 2004 or

For the transition period from                                  to                                 

Commission file number 0-16518

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

(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  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

Yes  ¨    No  x

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained in this Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II (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. Specifically, among others, we consider statements concerning projections of future operating results and cash flows, our ability to meet future obligations, and the amount and timing of future distributions to limited partners to be forward-looking statements.

Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date that 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. 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 follow:

General economic risks

Real estate risks inherent in properties owned through joint ventures

Page 2

Table of Contents

Other operational risks

Page 3

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 4

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

BALANCE SHEETS

ASSETS

See accompanying notes.

Page 5

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

Page 6

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003

AND THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2004 (unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

Page 7

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(unaudited)

See accompanying notes.

Page 8

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II

CONDENSED NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

JUNE 30, 2004 (unaudited)

Wells Real Estate Fund II (the “Partnership”) is a Georgia public limited partnership with Leo F. Wells, III and Wells Capital, a Georgia corporation, serving as its general partners (collectively, the “General Partners”). The Partnership was formed on June 23, 1986 for the purpose of acquiring, developing, constructing, owning, operating, improving, leasing, and managing income-producing 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 8, 1986, the Partnership commenced an offering of up to $50,000,000 of Class A or Class B limited partnership units ($250.00 per unit) pursuant to a Registration Statement filed on Form S-11 under the Securities Act of 1933. The offering was terminated on September 7, 1988, at which time the Partnership had sold approximately 139,793 Class A Units and Class B Units representing capital contributions of $34,948,250 from investors who were admitted to the Partnership as limited partners. Following the termination of the offering, the Partnership repurchased 1,000 limited partnership units.

The Partnership owns interests in all of its real estate assets through a joint venture, Fund II and Fund II-OW, which owns interests in real estate assets both directly and through joint ventures with other Wells Real Estate Funds. During the periods presented, the Partnership owned interests in the following five properties through the affiliated joint ventures listed below (the “Joint Ventures”):

Page 9

Table of Contents

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. Approval of the other joint venture partners is required for any major decision or any action that would materially affect the Joint Ventures, or their real property investments. For further information regarding the Joint Ventures and foregoing properties, refer to the report filed for the Partnership on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

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 $1,461,000, and a gain of approximately $133,000 were allocated to the Partnership.

The 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 such 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 limited partners holding Class A Units and the General 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 limited partners holding Class B Units 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.

Gain on the sale or exchange of the Partnership’s properties will be 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 12% per annum return on his adjusted capital contribution, 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, subject to the requirement to initially allocate gain on sale to limited partners holding Class B Units until they have been allocated an amount equal to the net cash available for distribution previously received by limited partners holding Class A Units on a per-unit basis; (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.

Page 10

Table of Contents

Net cash from operations, if available, is generally distributed to limited partners quarterly. In accordance with the partnership agreement, such distributions are paid first to each limited partner holding Class A Units until he has received an 8% per annum return on his adjusted capital contributions, as defined. Net cash from operations is then distributed to each limited partner holding Class B Units until he has received an 8% per annum return on his adjusted capital contributions, as defined. Any excess net cash from operations would then be distributed to the General Partners until they have received 10% of the total distributions for the year. Thereafter, net cash from operations is distributed 90% to the limited partners and 10% to the General Partners.

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current year financial statement presentation.

The Partnership does not have control over the operations of the Joint Ventures; however, it does exercise significant influence. Approval of the Partnership and the other joint venture partners is required for any major decision or any action that would materially affect the Joint Ventures or their real property investments. Accordingly, the Partnership’s investment in Fund II-IIOW 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 financial statements and footnotes included in the Partnership’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

The following information summarizes the operations of the Fund II-IIOW Associates for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively:

Page 11

Table of Contents

The following information summarizes the operations of the joint ventures in which the Partnership holds interests through its equity interest in Fund II-IIOW Associates for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively:

Page 12

Table of Contents

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 the Joint Ventures equal to (a) of the gross revenues collected monthly, 3% of the gross revenues for management and 3% of the gross revenues for leasing (aggregate maximum 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. The Partnership’s share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred through the Joint Ventures was $32,893 and $28,178 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $62,073 and $52,150 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

Wells Capital and its affiliates perform certain administrative services for the Partnership, such as accounting and other partnership administration, and incur the related expenses. Such expenses are allocated among various other entities affiliated with the General Partners (the “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 Joint Ventures have reimbursed Wells Capital $75,523 and $51,189 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $153,828 and $123,983 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

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.

On July 1, 2004, Fund II-III Associates and Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates, collectively, sold Brookwood Grill and the Holcomb Bridge Property to an unrelated third party for a gross sale price of $9,500,000. As a result of the sale of Brookwood Grill, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $1,369,000 and recognized a gain of approximately $513,000. As a result of the sale of the Holcomb Bridge Property, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $954,000, recognized an immediate gain of approximately $259,000, and recorded a deferred gain of approximately $22,000. The deferred gain represents the Partnership’s pro rata allocation of maximum exposure under an eighteen-month rental guarantee provided to the purchaser in connection with the sale. Gains on the sales of the Holcomb Bridge Property and Brookwood Grill may be adjusted as additional information becomes available in subsequent periods.

By Order dated June 3, 2004, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, dismissed, without prejudice, the putative class action complaint filed on or about March 12, 2004 against Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, and certain affiliates of Wells Capital relating to Wells Real Estate Fund I, an affiliate of the General Partners (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2).

Page 13

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 typically operates through 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 fundraising 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

Portfolio Overview

The Partnership has moved from the positioning-for-sale phase into the disposition and liquidation phase of its life cycle. We have now sold three assets and a portion of Heritage Place. Our focus on the remaining assets involves leasing and marketing efforts that we believe will result in the best disposition pricing for our investors.

The sale of the Holcomb Bridge Property and Brookwood Grill on July 1, 2004 (after the close of the quarter), was a highlight for the Partnership, which held approximate interests of 14% and 59% in the two properties, respectively. The sale capitalized on the current strong investor demand for retail shopping centers in the market.

With a number of properties sold, the General Partners are currently reserving operating cash and net sale proceeds to fund the re-leasing costs anticipated for the Louis Rose Building and Heritage Place. Further, the General Partners anticipate continuing to hold operating distributions until the Louis Rose Building is fully re-leased. As 2004 progresses and the outcome of the re-leasing efforts are known, the General Partners will evaluate if distributions of net sale proceeds are appropriate.

As of June 30, 2004, current Class A unit holders have received cumulative net operating cash flows of approximately $25.2 million, as compared to the approximately $27.1 million originally invested, or approximately 93% of the dollars invested since inception. No operating distributions have been made to the General Partners, in line with the partnership agreement.

Page 14

Table of Contents

Property Summary

During the positioning-for-sale phase, 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 downtime, re-leasing expenditures, ongoing property level costs and portfolio costs. Specifically, we will focus our efforts on re-leasing the Louis Rose Building, which has remained vacant following the expiration of Louis Rose’s lease on April 30, 2001. Softening of the Charlotte office market and related Northeast submarket over the past three years has made the re-leasing of this building challenging.

As we move further into the disposition and liquidation phase, our attention will shift to locating suitable buyers, negotiating purchase-sale contracts that will attempt to maximize the total return to the limited partners, and minimize contingencies and our post-closing involvement with the buyer.

Page 15

Table of Contents

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 the road to recovery. 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. Market fundamentals are improving, and new office jobs are slowly being created. 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 this asset class. The increase in capital drives the prices of many properties upward and investor returns downward. There is a significant pricing differential in the underwriting parameters of 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 have peaked and are expected to trend downward moderately through the end of 2004. There is some encouraging news in that construction continues to taper off and has come 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. Many industry professionals believe office market fundamentals have bottomed-out; however, a recovery cannot be expected until job growth and corresponding demand for office space continue to increase.

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

Real estate funds, such as the Partnership, that invest in properties with current vacancies or near-term tenant rollover may face a challenging leasing environment. In connection with re-leasing vacant space, the properties within these funds are generally encountering lower market rental rates and higher concession packages to tenants.

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.

Equity in Loss of Joint Ventures

Equity in loss of the Joint Ventures was $201,590 and $59,754 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $358,838 and $166,033 for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively. The increase in losses is primarily attributable to (a) forgone income from the sale of the retail portion of Heritage Place in April 2003, (b) an increase in administrative expenses recorded by Fund II-IIOW Associates related to increased reporting and regulatory requirements, partially offset by (c) an increase in occupancy of Boeing at the Atrium, (d) the Holcomb Bridge Property beginning in the second half of 2003, and (e) the gain recognized from the sale of the retail portion of Heritage Place.

Our operating strategy entails funding expenses related to the recurring operations of the properties and the portfolio with operating cash flows, including distributions received from the Joint Ventures, and assessing the amount of remaining cash flows that will be required to fund known re-leasing costs and other capital improvements. Any residual operating cash flows are considered available for distribution to the limited partners and are generally paid quarterly. As a result, the ongoing monitoring of the Partnership’s cash position is critical to ensuring that adequate liquidity and capital resources are available. Economic downturns in one or more of our core markets could adversely impact the ability of our tenants to honor lease payments and our ability to re-lease space on favorable terms as leases expire or space otherwise becomes vacant. In the event of either situation, cash flows and, consequently, our ability to provide funding for capital needs would be adversely affected.

Page 16

Table of Contents

Short-Term Liquidity

During the six months ended June 30, 2004, we generated net operating cash flows of approximately $300, as compared to approximately $1,400, for the six months ended June 30, 2003. Fund II-IIOW Associates continues to hold operating distributions received from the Joint Ventures and otherwise payable to the Partnership in order to provide funding for the costs anticipated in connection with re-leasing the Louis Rose Building and Heritage Place. Accordingly, no operating distributions were paid to limited partners during the six months ended June 30, 2004. Future operating distributions to limited partners will be largely dependent upon the amount of cash generated from the Joint Ventures, our expectations of future cash flows, and determination of near-term cash needs for tenant re-leasing costs and other capital improvements.

We believe that the cash on hand and distributions due from the Joint Ventures are sufficient to cover the Partnership’s current working capital needs, including liabilities of approximately $8,000 as of June 30, 2004.

Long-Term Liquidity

We expect that our future sources of capital will be primarily derived from net proceeds generated from the selective and strategic sale of properties and operating cash flows generated from the Joint Ventures. Our future long-term liquidity requirements will include, but not be limited to, tenant improvements, renovations, expansions, and other significant capital improvements necessary for properties owned through the Joint Ventures. Specifically, we anticipate funding the Partnership’s proportionate share of the costs necessary to re-lease the Louis Rose Building. We expect to reinstate operating distributions to limited partners following the re-leasing of the Louis Rose Building and funding of related leasing costs and tenant improvements required in connection therewith.

We have encountered problems re-leasing the Louis Rose Building primarily due to the softening of the Charlotte office market and related Northeast submarket during the period following the expiration of Louis Rose’s lease on April 30, 2001. The Northeast submarket continues to face challenges as the result of new office product deliveries, offering attractive rental rates and other concessions to potential tenants. Current vacancy in the submarket is 35.7%, compared to the vacancy rate for Charlotte as a whole of 16.5%. Accordingly, there is no guarantee when the Louis Rose Building will be re-leased or the rental rates to be achieved in connection therewith.

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 the partners’ original capital contributions. Thus, it is unlikely that we will acquire interests in any additional properties. Historically, our investment strategy has generally involved acquiring properties that are pre-leased to creditworthy tenants on an all-cash basis through the Joint Ventures with affiliated partnerships.

We incur capital expenditures primarily in the form of building improvements for the purpose of maintaining the quality of our properties, and tenant improvements for the purpose of readying our properties for re-leasing. As leases expire, we typically attempt to re-lease space to an existing tenant or market the space to prospective new tenants. Generally, tenant improvements funded in connection with lease renewals require less capital than those funded in connection with new leases. However, external conditions, such as the supply of and demand for comparable space available within a given market, drive capital costs as well as rental rates.

Page 17

Table of Contents

Operating cash flows, if available, are generally distributed from the Joint Ventures to the Partnership during the second month following each calendar quarter-end. However, the Joint Ventures will reserve operating distributions, or a portion thereof, as needed in order to fund known capital and other expenditures. Our cash management policy typically includes first utilizing current period operating cash flow until depleted, at which point operating reserves are utilized to fund capital and other required expenditures. In the event that current and prior period accumulated operating cash flows are insufficient to fund such costs, net property sale proceeds reserves would then be utilized.

As of June 30, 2004, the Partnership had received, used, and held net proceeds from the sale of properties as presented below:

Rather than distributing to the limited partners, the Partnership’s share of the net proceeds generated from the sales of the Cherokee Commons property and the retail portion of the Heritage Place property are being held in reserve at Fund II-IIOW Associates as the General Partners continue to evaluate the capital needs of the existing properties in which the Partnership holds an interest in consideration of the best interests of the limited partners.

The Partnership and the Joint Ventures have entered into agreements with Wells Capital and its affiliates, whereby the Partnership or the 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 3 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 18

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 Joint Venture’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 the 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 June 30, 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 19

Table of Contents

By Order dated June 3, 2004, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, dismissed, without prejudice, the putative class action complaint filed on or about March 12, 2004 against Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, and certain affiliates of Wells Capital relating to Wells Real Estate Fund I, an affiliate of the General Partners (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2).

Subsequent Event

On July 1, 2004, Fund II-III Associates and Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates, collectively, sold Brookwood Grill and the Holcomb Bridge Property to an unrelated third party for a gross sale price of $9,500,000. As a result of the sale of Brookwood Grill, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $1,369,000 and recognized a gain of approximately $513,000. As a result of the sale of the Holcomb Bridge Property, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $954,000, recognized an immediate gain of approximately $259,000, and recorded a deferred gain of approximately $22,000. The deferred gain represents the Partnership’s pro rata allocation of maximum exposure under an eighteen-month rental guarantee provided to the purchaser in connection with the sale. Gains on the sales of the Holcomb Bridge Property and Brookwood Grill may be adjusted as additional information becomes available in subsequent periods.

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.

Page 20

Table of Contents

PART II.    OTHER INFORMATION

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 21

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

TO

SECOND QUARTER FORM 10-Q

OF

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND II