Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark one)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

Or

For the transition period from                                  to                                 

Commission file number 0-18407

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:

CLASS A UNITS

(Title of class)

CLASS B UNITS

(Title of class)

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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.

Not Applicable

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

Yes  ¨    No  x

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

Not Applicable

Note.—If a determination as to whether a particular person or entity is an affiliate cannot be made without involving unreasonable effort and expense, the aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates may be calculated on the basis of assumptions reasonable under the circumstances, provided that the assumptions are set forth in this Form.

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained in this Form 10-K of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (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-K, 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

Page 2

Table of Contents

Other operational risks

Page 3

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1.    BUSINESS.

General

Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. (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”). Wells Capital is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. Leo F. Wells, III is the president and sole director of Wells Capital and the sole owner of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. The Partnership was formed on July 31, 1988 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. The 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 partner unit has equal voting rights regardless of class.

On October 24, 1988, the Partnership commenced an offering of up to $50,000,000 of Class A or Class B limited partnership units ($1.00 per unit) pursuant to a Registration Statement filed on Form S-11 under the Securities Act of 1933. The offering was terminated on October 23, 1990 at which time the Partnership had sold approximately 19,635,965 Class A and 2,544,540 Class B Units representing capital contributions of $22,206,310.

Management believes that the Partnership typically operates through the following five key life cycle phases. The duration of 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; and

The period during which the Partnership sells its real estate investments, distributes net sale proceeds to the partners, liquidates, and terminates the Partnership.

The Partnership has moved from the positioning-for-sale phase into the disposition-and-liquidation phase of its life cycle. The Partnership owned and sold one property that it owned directly and invested in joint ventures which originally acquired five properties, of which three have been sold. Management’s focus on the remaining assets owned through the joint ventures involves re-leasing and marketing efforts that are believed to result in the best disposition pricing for the investors.

Page 4

Table of Contents

Employees

The Partnership has no direct employees. The employees of Wells Capital and Wells Management Company, Inc. (“Wells Management”), an affiliate of the General Partners, perform a full range of real estate services including leasing and property management, accounting, asset management and investor relations for the Partnership. See Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,” for a summary of the fees paid to the General Partners and their affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2004.

Insurance

Wells Management carries comprehensive liability and extended coverage with respect to the properties owned directly or indirectly by the Partnership. In the opinion of management, the properties are adequately insured.

Competition

The Partnership will experience competition for tenants from owners and managers of competing projects, which may include the General Partners and their affiliates. As a result, in connection with negotiating leases, the Partnership may offer rental concessions, reduced charges for tenant improvements, and other inducements, all of which may have an adverse impact on results of operations. The Partnership is also in competition with sellers of similar properties to locate suitable purchasers for its properties.

Web Site Address

Access to copies of each of our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) may be obtained free of charge from the following website, http://www.wellsref.com, through a link to the http://www.sec.gov website.

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES.

The Partnership owned a 100% interest in Greenville Center, an office building located in Greenville, North Carolina, until September 30, 2002. On this date, the Partnership sold Greenville Center to an unrelated third party for a gross sales price of $2,400,000. As a result of this sale, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $2,271,187, recognized an impairment loss of approximately $469,750, and recognized an additional loss on sale of approximately $21,051.

Page 5

Table of Contents

During the periods presented, the Partnership owned interests in the following joint ventures (the “Joint Ventures”) and properties:

Wells Real Estate Fund II, Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW, Wells Real Estate Fund IV, L.P, Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P, and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. are affiliated with the Partnership through one or more common general partners. Each of the properties described above was acquired on an all-cash basis.

As of December 31, 2004, the lease expirations scheduled during the following ten years for all properties in which the Partnership held an interest through the Joint Ventures, assuming no exercise of renewal options or termination rights, are summarized below:

Page 6

Table of Contents

The Joint Ventures in which the Partnership owned an interest during the periods presented are further described below:

Fund II-III Associates

In April 1989, Fund II-III Associates was formed for the purposes of developing, constructing, operating, and selling commercial and industrial real properties. During the periods presented, Fund II-IIOW Associates and the Partnership held equity interests of approximately 63% and 37%, respectively, in the following properties based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund II-III Associates:

Boeing at the Atrium

In April 1989, Fund II-III Associates acquired a four-story office building, Boeing at the Atrium, located on a 5.6-acre tract of land adjacent to the Johnson Space Center in metropolitan Houston, Texas.

In March 2002, Boeing/Shuttle Division (“Boeing”) entered into a lease for approximately six years for the top three floors of the four-story Boeing at the Atrium (94,203 sq. ft.) commencing on September 1, 2002 and expiring on March 31, 2008. On October 1, 2002, Boeing entered into a first amendment to lease an additional 296 square feet of space in the building. On January 6, 2003, Boeing entered into a second amendment to lease an additional 11,515 square feet of space in the building. On July 1, 2003, Boeing signed a third amendment to this lease, bringing Boeing’s occupancy of the space to approximately 100% of the building. As of December 31, 2004, Boeing leased approximately 99% of this property with annual base rent of $1,834,292 continuing through expiration of lease, and one tenant leased the remaining approximate 1% of this property. A termination and contraction option exists under the terms of the Boeing lease, which allows Boeing to cancel the lease or decrease the square footage at any time after September 1, 2005 with nine months’ prior written notice. If Boeing chooses to exercise the option to terminate or reduce the square footage, Boeing must pay a termination fee equal to the unamortized leasehold costs incurred by the landlord. Additionally, any decreases in square footage must be on a full floor only, beginning with the lowest floors of the premises.

Brookwood Grill

In January 1990, Fund II-IIOW Associates acquired a 5.8-acre tract of undeveloped real property at the intersection of Warsaw Road and Holcomb Bridge Road in Roswell, Georgia. On September 20, 1991, Fund II-IIOW Associates contributed its interest in this 5.8-acre parcel of land, along with its interest as landlord under the lease agreement referred to below, as a capital contribution to Fund II-III Associates. As of September 20, 1991, Fund II-IIOW Associates had expended approximately $2,128,000 for the land acquisition and development of the land. In September 1991, a lease agreement was entered into with the Brookwood Grill of Roswell, Inc., which included the development of approximately 1.5 acres and construction of a 7,440-square-foot restaurant, the Brookwood Grill, which opened in March 1992. On July 1, 2004, Fund II-III Associates and Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates sold Brookwood Grill and the Holcomb Bridge Property described below, collectively, to an unrelated third party for an aggregate gross sales price of $9,500,000. As a result of the sale of Brookwood Grill, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $884,000 and was allocated a gain of approximately $290,000.

Page 7

Table of Contents

Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates

In January 1995, Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, constructing, owning, and operating the Holcomb Bridge Property. During the periods presented, Fund II-III Associates, Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P., and Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. owned equity interests of approximately 24%, 26%, and 50%, respectively, in the following property based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates. The Partnership holds an equity interest of approximately 9% in Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates.

Holcomb Bridge Property

In January 1995, Fund II-III Associates contributed the remaining approximate 4.3 acres of the undeveloped real property, including land improvements, to Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates for the development and construction of two buildings containing a total of approximately 49,500 square feet, the Holcomb Bridge Property. As a result of the aforementioned sale of the Holcomb Bridge Property, the Partnership received net sale proceeds of approximately $608,000, was allocated an immediate gain of approximately $164,000, and recorded a deferred gain of approximately $14,000. 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. As of December 31, 2004, the Partnership recognized approximately $1,100 of this deferred gain.

Fund III-IV Associates

In March 1991, Fund III-IV Associates was formed for the purpose of developing, constructing, operating, and selling commercial and industrial real properties. During the periods presented, the Partnership and Wells Real Estate Fund IV, L.P. owned equity interests of approximately 57% and 43%, respectively, in the following properties based on their respective cumulative capital contributions to Fund III-IV Associates:

Stockbridge Village Shopping Center

In April 1991, Fund III-IV Associates purchased 13.62 acres of real property located in Stockbridge, Georgia, for the purpose of developing, constructing, and operating a shopping center known as the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center. The multi-tenant shopping center contained approximately 112,900 square feet, of which approximately 64,000 square feet was occupied by the Kroger Company (“Kroger”), a retail grocery chain. Kroger was the only tenant in occupancy of more than ten percent of the rentable square feet of this property. On April 29, 2004, four affiliated joint ventures, including Fund III-IV Associates, sold five real properties, including the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, to an unrelated third party for a gross sales price of $23,750,000. As a result of the sale of the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, the Partnership was allocated a gain of approximately $2,700,000 net sale proceeds of approximately $6,900,000.

4400 Cox Road

In July 1992, Fund III-IV Associates acquired 4400 Cox Road, a two-story office building containing approximately 43,000 square feet located in Richmond, Virginia. One hundred percent of this building was leased to the Reciprocal Group, an insurance company, on October 4, 2000 for a term of eight years, with rent commencing in February 2001. Reciprocal Group terminated its lease and vacated the premises effective July 31, 2003. In 2004, two new leases were executed. As of December 31, 2004, New York Life Insurance Company leased approximately 34% of the building, and Apex Systems, Inc. leased approximately 50% of 4400 Cox Road. New York Life Insurance Company entered into a lease for approximately 14,700 square feet commencing on October 1, 2004 for approximately ten years and three months, including three months of rent abatements at lease commencement, with initial monthly base rent of approximately $21,496, and increasing each October until lease expiration, at which time New York Life Insurance Company will be paying monthly base rent of approximately $25,439. Apex Systems, Inc. entered into a lease for approximately 21,300 square feet commencing on November 15, 2004 for approximately ten years and ten months, including seven months of rent abatements at lease commencement, with initial monthly base rent of approximately $25,521, increasing to approximately $26,163 per month effective December 1, 2005, increasing to approximately $31,826 per month effective June 1, 2006, and thereafter increasing by approximately 2.5% every December until lease expiration.

Page 8

Table of Contents

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

From time to time, we are party to legal proceedings which arise in the ordinary course of its business. We are not currently involved in any litigation for which the outcome would, in the judgment of the General Partners based on information currently available, have a materially adverse impact on the results of operations or financial condition of the Partnership, nor is management aware of any such litigation threatened against us. In addition, no legal proceedings were terminated during the fourth quarter of 2004.

ITEM 4.    SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

No matters were submitted to a vote of the limited partners during the fourth quarter of 2004.

PART II

ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR PARTNERSHIP’S UNITS AND RELATED SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS.

Summary

As of February 28, 2005, 19,635,965 Class A Units and 2,544,540 Class B Units held by a total of 2,202 and 241 limited partners, respectively, were outstanding. Capital contributions are equal to $1.00 per each limited partnership unit. A public trading market has not been established for the Partnership’s limited partnership units, nor is such a market anticipated to develop in the future. The partnership agreement provides the General Partners with the right to prohibit transfers of units at their discretion.

Unit Valuation

Because fiduciaries of retirement plans subject to ERISA and IRA custodians are required to determine and report the value of the assets held in their respective plans or accounts on an annual basis, the General Partners are required under the partnership agreement to report estimated unit values each year in the Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K. The methodology to be utilized for determining such estimated unit values under the partnership agreement requires the General Partners to estimate the amount a unit holder would receive assuming that the Partnership’s properties were sold at their estimated fair market values as of the end of the Partnership’s fiscal year, and the proceeds therefrom (without any reduction for selling expenses), plus the amount of net sale proceeds held by the Partnership at year-end from previous property sales, if any, were distributed to the limited partners in liquidation. The estimated unit valuations are intended to be an estimate of the distributions that would be made to limited partners who purchased their units directly from the Partnership in the Partnership’s original public offering of units.

Utilizing the foregoing methodology and based upon market conditions existing in early December 2004, the General Partners have estimated the Partnership’s unit valuations, based upon their estimates of property values as of December 31, 2004, to be approximately $0.39 per Class A Unit and $0.33 per Class B Unit. These estimates should not be viewed as an accurate reflection of the value of the limited partners’ units, what limited partners might be able to sell their units for, or the fair market value of the Partnership’s properties, nor do they necessarily represent the amount of net proceeds limited partners would receive if the Partnership’s properties were sold and the proceeds distributed in a liquidation of the Partnership. There is no established public trading market for the Partnership’s limited partnership units, and it is not anticipated that a public trading market for the units will ever develop. In addition, property values are subject to change and could decline in the future. While, as required by the partnership agreement, the General Partners have obtained an opinion from The David L. Beal Company, an independent MAI appraiser, to the effect that such estimates of value were deemed reasonable and were prepared in accordance with appropriate methods for valuing real estate, no actual appraisals were obtained due to the inordinate expense which would be involved in obtaining appraisals for all of the Partnership’s properties.

Page 9

Table of Contents

The valuations performed by the General Partners are estimates only, and are based on a number of assumptions which may not be accurate or complete and may or may not be applicable to any specific limited partnership units. These estimated valuations assume, and are applicable only to, limited partners who purchased their units directly from the Partnership in the Partnership’s original public offering of units. Further, as set forth above, no third-party appraisals have or will be obtained. For these reasons, the estimated unit valuations set forth above should not be used by or relied upon by investors, other than fiduciaries of retirement plans and IRA custodians for limited ERISA and IRA reporting purposes, as any indication of the fair market value of their units. In addition, it should be noted that ERISA plan fiduciaries and IRA custodians may use estimated unit valuations obtained from other sources, such as prices paid for the Partnership’s units in secondary market trades, and that such estimated unit valuations may well be lower than those estimated by the General Partners using the methodology required by the partnership agreement.

It should also be noted that the Partnership is in the process of selling certain of its properties and that, as properties are sold and the net proceeds from property sales are distributed to limited partners, the remaining value of the Partnership’s portfolio of properties, and resulting value of Partnership’s limited partnership units, will naturally decline. In considering the foregoing estimated unit valuations, it should be noted that the Partnership has previously distributed net sale proceeds in the amount of $0.36 per Class A Unit and $0.34 per Class B Unit to its limited partners.

Operating cash available for distribution to the limited partners is generally distributed on a quarterly basis. In accordance with the partnership agreement, such distributions are paid first to limited partners holding Class A Units until each has received an 8% per annum return on his adjusted capital contribution, as defined. Net cash from operations is then distributed to each limited partner holding Class B Units until each has received an 8% per annum return on his adjusted capital contributions, as defined. If any net cash from operations remains, the General Partners receive an amount equal to 10% of total net cash from operations distributed for such year. Thereafter, amounts are distributed 10% to the General Partners and 90% to the limited partners.

Operating cash distributions made to limited partners holding Class A Units during 2003 and 2004 are summarized below:

Operating distributions were reserved in 2004 in order to fund re-leasing costs related to the new leases at 4400 Cox Road described in Part I, Item 2 above. No operating cash distributions were paid to the limited partners holding Class B Units or the General Partners as of December 31, 2004 or 2003.

Page 10

Table of Contents

ITEM 6.    SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

The following sets forth a summary of the selected financial data as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000:

Page 11

Table of Contents

ITEM 7.    MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Selected Financial Data presented in Item 6 and our accompanying financial statements and notes thereto.

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 four assets. Our focus on the remaining assets involves leasing and marketing efforts that we believe will result in the best disposition pricing for our investors.

During 2004, we accomplished a number of goals. First, we sold the Holcomb Bridge Property, Brookwood Grill, and Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, representing significant progress through the disposition-and-liquidation phase. These sales capitalized on the currently strong investor demand for retail shopping centers in the market. Second, we increased leasing at 4400 Cox Road, which had been completely vacant at the beginning of the year, to 84%. Lastly, we made two distributions of net sale proceeds to limited partners totaling approximately $7,970,000, and have announced an additional net sale proceeds distribution to limited partners, which is currently scheduled for the second quarter 2005, totaling approximately $775,000 from the sales of the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, the Holcomb Bridge Property, and Brookwood Grill.

With four properties now sold, the General Partners are currently reserving operating cash and a portion of net sale proceeds to fund expected re-leasing costs for the remaining vacant space at 4400 Cox Road, as well as anticipated capital expenditures at Boeing at the Atrium. Further, the General Partners anticipate continuing to reserve operating distributions until 4400 Cox Road is fully re-leased. Once the outcome of the property re-leasing efforts is known, the General Partners will evaluate if further distributions of net sale proceeds are appropriate.

Property Summary

Page 12

Table of Contents

As we move further into the disposition-and-liquidation phase, our attention is shifting to locating suitable buyers and 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 buyers.

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

Management reviews a number of economic forecasts and market commentaries in order to evaluate general economic conditions and formulate a view of the current environment’s effect on the real estate markets in which we operate.

Management believes that the U.S. economy is continuing on the path of slow, but steady recovery. Job growth is improving, with 2.2 million jobs created in 2004, and with another 2.4 to 2.8 million projected to be added in 2005. Gross Domestic Product growth and renewed business confidence are fueling the job growth. However, uncertainty still exists in the economy, primarily due to high oil prices, the war in Iraq, the trade deficit, and other global issues.

The U.S. office real estate market has begun to show modest improvement. The strength of the overall economy is having a positive impact on office real estate fundamentals. Positive absorption of office space combined with a decline in new construction has contributed to the increase in office occupancy rates for three consecutive quarters. Although occupancy rates have increased, management does not expect that they will rise by more than 200 basis points annually. As a result, management anticipates that it could be a minimum of two to three years before vacancy rates reach the equilibrium level of ten to twelve percent. Average asking rates stabilized in the second half of 2004. Management believes that renewed employment growth should benefit the office market; however, the uncertainty that still exists in the economy is causing many firms to continue to be more cautious with their investment and hiring decisions. Importantly, management believes the pace and strength of the recovery for office real estate will vary by market. Market conditions vary widely by geographical region, metropolitan area, submarket, and property.

Page 13

Table of Contents

The real estate capital transaction market continues to be very active. Capitalization rates (“cap rates”) have continued to decline in spite of the fact that the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) increased the Federal Funds Rate five times in 2004. Management believes that the decline in cap rates is predominately driven by increased capital flows into real estate. The spread between average cap rates and 10-year U.S. Treasuries narrowed in 2004; however, this was primarily due to a drop in cap rates rather than a rise in 10-year U.S. Treasuries. In management’s opinion, absent a significant move in interest rates or a significant decrease in the number of parties interested in acquiring real estate, cap rates are not expected to significantly increase from their current levels in 2005.

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 generally 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 prices to compensate for existing or pending vacancies.

Equity in Income of Joint Ventures

Equity in income of the Joint Ventures was $3,276,622, $111,833, and $273,251 for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively. The 2004 increase is primarily attributable to (i) the gain recognized on the April 2004 sale of the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center; (ii) the gain recognized on the July 2004 sale of the Holcomb Bridge Property and Brookwood Grill; (iii) an increase in operating income generated by Fund II-III Associates and Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates as a result of increased occupancy of Boeing at the Atrium and the Holcomb Bridge Property, respectively, beginning in the second half of 2003; (iv) a decline in depreciation expense for all buildings owned through the Joint Ventures due to changing the estimated weighted-average composite useful life from 25 years to 40 years effective July 1, 2004, partially offset by (v) a decline in operating income resulting from the termination of the Reciprocal lease at 4400 Cox Road effective July 2003.

The 2003 decrease, as compared to 2002, is primarily attributable to (i) a decline in operating income resulting from the termination of the Reciprocal lease at 4400 Cox Road effective July 2003, partially offset by (ii) an increase in operating income generated by Fund II-III Associates and Fund II-III-VI-VII Associates as a result of increased occupancy of Boeing at the Atrium and the Holcomb Bridge Property beginning in the second half of 2003, and (iii) a decrease in depreciation expense as a result of classifying the Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, which is owned by Fund III-IV Associates, as held for sale effective March 18, 2003.

We expect future equity in income of Joint Ventures to decline as we continue to sell properties in subsequent periods.

Expenses of the Partnership

Total expenses of the Partnership were $190,221, $145,273, and $125,462 for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively. The 2004 increase is primarily attributable to increases in administrative salaries, legal fees, postage and delivery, and printing costs associated with increased reporting and regulatory requirements. The 2003 increase, as compared to 2002, is primarily attributable to a corresponding increase in administrative salaries, accounting fees, postage and delivery, and printing costs. We anticipate additional increases related to implementing and adhering to such reporting and regulatory requirements on a going-forward basis.

Page 14

Table of Contents

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.

Short-Term Liquidity

During the year ended December 31, 2004, we generated net operating cash flows, including distributions received from the Joint Ventures, of approximately $399,000, as compared $863,000, for the year ended December 31, 2003 and $965,000 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Operating distributions from the Joint Ventures are generally representative of rental revenues and tenant reimbursements, less property operating expenses, management fees, general administrative expenses, and capital expenditures. Such operating cash flows are generally used to pay operating distributions to limited partners; however, the Partnership reserved distributions to limited partners during 2004 in order to fund the Partnership’s pro rata share of costs required in connection with re-leasing 4400 Cox Road.

During the year ended December 31, 2004, approximately $8,370,000 of net proceeds was generated from the sales of Stockbridge Village Shopping Center, Brookwood Grill and the Holcomb Bridge Property. During the same period, we invested approximately $769,000 of net sale proceeds and approximately $178,000 of operating cash flows into Fund III-IV Associates in order to fund the Partnership’s share of building improvements, tenant improvements, and leasing commissions related to new leases for approximately 84% of 4400 Cox Road and into Fund II-III Associates to fund a post-sale leasing commission and operating expenses for Brookwood Grill. The Partnership distributed net sale proceeds to limited partners of approximately $1,312,000 in January 2004 and approximately $6,658,000 in November 2004.

Operating distributions from the Joint Ventures have declined as a result of the sales of properties in previous and current periods and are expected to continue to decline as we sell additional properties in subsequent periods. Future operating distributions paid 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 anticipated tenant re-leasing costs and other capital improvements.

We believe that the cash on hand, including net proceeds from the sale of properties, and distributions due from the Joint Ventures are sufficient to cover the Partnership’s working capital needs, including liabilities of approximately $22,000 as of December 31, 2004. During the remainder of 2004, the General Partners anticipate that the Partnership will fund its proportionate share of costs required to lease up the remaining available space at 4400 Cox Road.

Long-Term Liquidity

We expect that our future sources of capital will be primarily derived from operating cash flows generated from the Joint Ventures, and net proceeds generated from the selective and strategic sale of properties. Our future long-term liquidity requirements will include, but not be limited to, tenant improvements, leasing commissions, renovations, and other significant capital improvements necessary for properties owned through the Joint Ventures. We expect to continue to use substantially all future net cash flows from operations, including distributions received from the Joint Ventures, less expenses related to the recurring operations of the properties and the portfolio and reserves for known capital expenditures.

Page 15

Table of Contents

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.

The Joint Ventures fund capital expenditures primarily related to 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.

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 flows 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 December 31, 2004, the Partnership had received, used, and held net proceeds from the sale of properties as presented below:

Upon evaluating the capital needs of the properties in which the Partnership currently holds an interest, the General Partners have determined that reserves of net sale proceeds of approximately $1,127,000 should be held to fund the costs anticipated in connection with re-leasing 4400 Cox Road and capital improvements for Boeing at the Atrium. In December 2004, the General Partners announced their intention to distribute net sale proceeds of approximately $775,000 in the second quarter of 2005 to the limited partners of record as of March 31, 2005, which, under the terms of the partnership agreement, does not include limited partners acquiring units after December 31, 2004.

Page 16

Table of Contents

Distribution of Net Sale Proceeds

In December 2004, the General Partners announced their intention to distribute net sale proceeds of approximately $775,000 in the second quarter of 2005 to the limited partners of record as of March 31, 2005, which, under the terms of the Partnership agreement, does not include limited partners acquiring units after December 31, 2004. From total net sale proceeds of approximately $1,900,000, the General Partners intend to distribute approximately $775,000 to the limited partners in connection with the aforementioned distribution and retain the residual balance of approximately $1,127,000 in reserve in order to fund future operating costs of the Partnership.

This distribution has not been formally declared by the General Partners. In accordance with the terms of the partnership agreement, the General Partners may elect to retain reserves deemed reasonably necessary for the Partnership at the sole discretion of the General Partners. Thus, should a change in circumstances prior to the intended distribution date require the General Partners to reevaluate the Partnership’s reserve requirements, it is possible that this distribution may not occur, or that distributions may be made at a lower amount.

Litigation against Related Parties

During early 2004, a putative class action complaint was filed against, among others, Leo. F. Wells, III, and Wells Capital, our General Partners, and Wells Management. The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to permit voluntary dismissal of this suit, and it was dismissed without prejudice. In November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative class action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management. On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions. The details of both complaints are outlined below.

As a matter of background, on or about March 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint (the “Original Complaint”) was filed by four individuals (the “plaintiffs”) against Wells Real Estate Fund I, and Wells Capital, and Leo F. Wells, III (collectively, “the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I”), as well as Wells Management and Wells Investment Securities, Inc. (“WIS”) (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2). Wells Real Estate Fund I is a public limited partnership. The plaintiffs filed the Original Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding B units of Wells Real Estate Fund I as of January 15, 2003. The Original Complaint alleged, among other things, that (a) the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I, WIS, and Wells Real Estate Fund I 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 Wells Real Estate Fund I 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) the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I and Wells Real Estate Fund I 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 Wells Real Estate Fund I, among other reasons; (c) Mr. Wells and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited partners; and (d) the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I and Wells Real Estate Fund I breached fiduciary duties to the limited partners. On June 3, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to permit voluntary dismissal, and the Original Complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Page 17

Table of Contents

On or about November 24, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a second putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) against Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells Management, and Wells Real Estate Fund I (Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6) (the “Hendry Action”). The plaintiffs filed the Complaint purportedly on behalf of all limited partners holding B units of Wells Real Estate Fund I as of January 9, 2002. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners by, among other things: (a) failing to timely disclose alleged inconsistencies between sales literature and the partnership agreement relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds; (b) engaging in a scheme to fraudulently conceal alleged inconsistencies between sales literature and the partnership agreement relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds; and (c) not accepting a settlement offer proposed by a holder of A units and a holder of A and B units in other litigation naming Wells Real Estate Fund I as a defendant, in which other litigation the court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Real Estate Fund I. The Complaint also alleges that misrepresentations and omissions in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners caused that consent solicitation to be materially misleading. In addition, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I and Wells Management breached an alleged contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited partners relating to an alleged waiver of deferred management fees.

The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following: judgment against the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial; punitive damages; disgorgement of fees earned by the General Partners directly or through their affiliates; a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void; enforcement of an alleged contract arising out of the June 2000 consent solicitation to waive Wells Management’s deferred management fees; and an award to plaintiffs of their attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The Complaint states that Wells Real Estate Fund I is named only as a necessary party defendant and that the plaintiffs seek no money from or relief at the expense of Wells Real Estate Fund I. On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions. Due to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter at this time. However, an adverse outcome could adversely affect the ability of Wells Capital, Wells Management, and Mr. Wells to fulfill their respective duties under the agreements and relationships they have with us.

The Hendry Action states that Wells Real Estate Fund I is named only as a necessary defendant and that the plaintiffs are seeking no money from or relief at the expense of Wells Real Estate Fund I. Since the partnership agreement of Wells Real Estate Fund I contains no provision for advancing defense costs to the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I in connection with litigation involving the partnership in instances where the plaintiffs are seeking no monetary relief from the partnership, the General Partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I, currently Wells Capital, are funding the legal fees, costs, and expenses relating to this litigation. As of December 31, 2004, Wells Capital had incurred approximately $32,000 in legal fees, costs, and expenses related to defending the Hendry Action. At this time, management is unable to determine whether the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote.

Management and Leasing Fees and Administration Reimbursements

We have entered into agreements with Wells Capital, Wells Management, an affiliate of our General Partners, and their affiliates, whereby we pay certain fees and expense reimbursements to Wells Capital, Wells Management, and their affiliates for asset management, the management and leasing of the Partnership’s properties; administrative services for the Partnership, relating to accounting, property management, and other partnership administration; and incur the related expenses. See Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,” for a description of these fees and expense reimbursements incurred by the Partnership during the year ended December 31, 2004.

Conflicts of Interest

Our General Partners are also general partners of other affiliated public limited partnerships, (the “Wells Real Estate Funds”). In addition, Wells Capital sponsors and advises two affiliated real estate investment trusts (the “REITs”) in which it retains residual interests. As such, there may exist conflicts of interest whereby the General Partners, in their capacity as general partners of other Wells Real Estate Funds or as the advisor to the REITs, may be in competition with the Partnership with respect to, among other things, locating suitable replacement tenants or prospective acquirers for property dispositions.

Page 18

Table of Contents

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 we would be able to replace existing leases with new leases at higher base rental rates.

Our 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 our results of operations to those of companies in similar businesses.

Below is a discussion of the accounting policies used by the Partnership and the Joint Ventures, which are considered 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

We will be required to make subjective assessments as to the useful lives of its depreciable assets. We will consider 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 third quarter of 2004, the Joint Ventures completed a review of their real estate depreciation by performing an analysis of the components of each property type in an effort to determine weighted-average composite useful lives of their real estate assets. As a result of this review, the Joint Ventures changed their estimate of the weighted-average composite useful lives for all building assets. Effective July 1, 2004, for all building assets, the Joint Ventures extended the weighted-average composite useful life from 25 years to 40 years. The change resulted in an increase to net income of approximately $81,414 for the year ended December 31, 2004. We believe the change more appropriately reflects the estimated useful lives of the building assets and is consistent with prevailing industry practice. This change has no impact on the amount of depreciation allocated to the limited partners for federal income tax purposes.

Valuation of Real Estate Assets

We continually monitor events and changes in circumstances that could indicate that the carrying amounts of the real estate assets in which we have 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. We have determined that there has been no impairment in the carrying value of real estate assets we held as of December 31, 2004.

Page 19

Table of Contents

We recognized an impairment loss of $373,750 on our investment in Greenville Center during the second quarter of 2002 and an additional impairment loss of $96,000 in the third quarter of 2002, both of which are included in the total loss on disposition in the accompanying statements of operations. Our management has determined that there has been no other impairment in the carrying value of real estate assets held by the Partnership to date.

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.

We have engaged Wells Management to supervise the management and leasing of properties owned through the Joint Ventures, and Wells Capital to perform certain administrative services, including accounting, shareholder communications, and investor relations. As a result of these relationships, we are dependent upon Wells Management, Wells Capital, and other affiliates thereof to provide certain services that are essential to our operations, including asset management and property management services, asset acquisition and disposition services, and other administrative responsibilities under agreements, some of which have terms of one year or less.

Wells Management, Wells Capital, and WIS are owned and controlled by and comprise substantially all of the operations of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc. (“WREF”). Due to their common ownership and importance to WREF, we focus on the financial condition of WREF when assessing the financial condition of Wells Capital, Wells Management, and WIS. In the event that WREF is to become unable to meet its obligations as they become due, it may become necessary for the Partnership and/or the Joint Venture to find alternative service providers.

For the six months ended December 31, 2004, operating revenues for WREF on a consolidated basis exceeded operating expenses by approximately $5.8 million, and WREF is also expecting revenues to exceed expenses during 2005. For the year ended December 31, 2004, operating expenses for WREF exceeded operating revenues by $11.6 million. During 2004, WREF incurred net losses primarily due to the fact that revenues from acquisition, advisory, asset management services, and property management services were less than the costs to provide such services. In planning for 2004, WREF anticipated incurring short-term losses and, accordingly, reserved funds adequate to cover such a shortfall. WREF anticipated generating lower revenues in 2004, as compared to 2003, primarily due to the fact that the majority of its revenues are earned as a percentage of gross investment proceeds raised by the sale of securities issued by affiliated investment products. Gross offering proceeds from the sale of shares of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (“REIT II”), an investment product sponsored by WREF whose offering commenced in December 2003, were anticipated to be significantly less in 2004 than offering proceeds from the sale of shares of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“REIT I”), another investment product sponsored by WREF whose offering closed in December 2003. Consistent with sale of shares of REIT I during the beginning of its offering period, the sale of shares of REIT II was anticipated to remain relatively low during the beginning of its offering period.

Additionally, we are dependent upon the ability of our current tenants to pay their contractual rent amounts as the rents become due. The inability of a tenant to pay future rental amounts would have a negative impact on our results of operations.

ITEM 7A.    QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.

Since we do not borrow any money, make any foreign investments or invest in any market risk-sensitive instruments, we are 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.

ITEM 8.    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.

Our financial statements and supplementary data are detailed under Item 15(a) and filed as part of the report on the pages indicated.

Page 20

Table of Contents

ITEM 9.    CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

There were no disagreements with the Partnership’s independent registered public accountants during the years ended December 31, 2004 or 2003.

ITEM 9A.    CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

The Partnership carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management of Wells Capital, our corporate General Partner, 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 to 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 during the quarter ended December 31, 2004 that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B.    OTHER INFORMATION.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2004, all items required to be disclosed under Form 8-K were reported under Form 8-K.

PART III

ITEM 10.    GENERAL PARTNERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP.

Wells Capital

Wells Capital, our corporate General Partner, was formed in April 1984. The executive offices of Wells Capital are located at 6200 The Corners Parkway, Norcross, Georgia 30092. Leo F. Wells, III is the sole Director and the President of Wells Capital. Wells Capital was organized under the Georgia Business Corporation Code, and is primarily in the business of serving as general partner or as an affiliate to the general partner in affiliated public limited partnerships (“Wells Real Estate Funds”) and as the advisor to the Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc. (“Wells REITs”), each a Maryland corporation which qualifies as a real estate investment trust. In these capacities, Wells Capital performs certain services for the Wells Real Estate Funds and the Wells REITs, including presenting, structuring, and acquiring real estate investment opportunities, entering into leases and service contracts on acquired properties; arranging for and completing the disposition of properties; and providing other services such as accounting and administrative functions. Wells Capital is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., of which Leo F. Wells, III is the sole stockholder.

Leo F. Wells, III

Mr. Wells, 61, who serves as one of our General Partners, is the President, Treasurer, and sole director of Wells Capital, which is our corporate General Partner. He is also the sole stockholder, President, and sole director of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc., the parent corporation of Wells Capital, Wells Management, WIS, and Wells & Associates, Inc., a real estate brokerage and investment company formed in 1976 and incorporated in 1978, for which Mr. Wells serves as principal broker. He is also the President, Treasurer, and sole director of:

Mr. Wells is the President and a director of Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. and Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., which are both real estate investment trusts formed under Maryland law.

Mr. Wells was a real estate salesman and property manager from 1970 to 1973 for Roy D. Warren & Company, an Atlanta-based real estate company, and he was associated from 1973 to 1976 with Sax Gaskin Real Estate Company. From 1980 to February 1985 he served as Vice President of Hill-Johnson, Inc., a Georgia corporation engaged in the construction business. Mr. Wells holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in economics from the University of Georgia. Mr. Wells is a member of the Financial Planning Association (FPA).

Page 21

Table of Contents

On August 26, 2003, Mr. Wells and WIS entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) with the NASD relating to alleged rule violations. The AWC set forth the NASD’s findings that WIS and Mr. Wells had violated conduct rules relating to the provision of noncash compensation of more than $100 to associated persons of NASD member firms in connection with their attendance at the annual educational and due diligence conferences sponsored by WIS in 2001 and 2002. Without admitting or denying the allegations and findings against them, WIS and Mr. Wells consented in the AWC to various findings by the NASD which are summarized in the following paragraph:

In 2001 and 2002, WIS sponsored conferences attended by registered representatives who sold its real estate investment products. WIS also paid for certain expenses of guests of the registered representatives who attended the conferences. In 2001, WIS paid the costs of travel to the conference and meals for many of the guests, and paid the costs of playing golf for some of the registered representatives and their guests. WIS later invoiced registered representatives for the cost of golf and for travel expenses of guests, but was not fully reimbursed for such. In 2002, WIS paid for meals for the guests. WIS also conditioned most of the 2001 conference invitations on attainment by the registered representatives of a predetermined sales goal for WIS products. This conduct violated the prohibitions against payment and receipt of noncash compensation in connection with the sales of these products contained in NASD’s Conduct Rules 2710, 2810, and 3060. In addition, WIS and Mr. Wells failed to adhere to all of the terms of their written undertaking made in March 2001 not to engage in the conduct described above, and thereby engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in violation of NASD Conduct Rule 2110.

WIS consented to a censure and Mr. Wells consented to suspension from acting in a principal capacity with an NASD member firm for one year. WIS and Mr. Wells also agreed to the imposition of a joint and several fine in the amount of $150,000. Mr. Wells’ one-year suspension from acting in a principal capacity ended on October 6, 2004. Mr. Wells continues to engage in selling efforts and other nonprincipal activities on behalf of WIS.

On or about November 24, 2004, a putative class action complaint, the Hendry Action, was filed by four individuals against Wells Capital and Mr. Wells, the general partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I, Wells Real Estate Fund I, Wells Management, and WIS. See Part I, Item 7 for additional information regarding the Hendry Action.

Financial Oversight Committee

The Partnership does not have a board of directors or an audit committee. Accordingly, as our corporate General Partner, Wells Capital has established a Financial Oversight Committee consisting of Leo F. Wells, III, as the Principal Executive Officer; Douglas P. Williams, as the Principal Financial Officer; and Randall D. Fretz, as the Chief of Staff, of our corporate General Partner. The Financial Oversight Committee serves the equivalent function of an audit committee for, among others, the following purposes: appointment, compensation, review and oversight of the work of our independent registered public accountants, and establishing and enforcing the code of ethics. However, as the Partnership and corporate General Partner do not have an audit committee and the Financial Oversight Committee is not independent of the Partnership or the General Partners, the Partnership does not have an “audit committee financial expert.”

Code of Ethics

The Financial Oversight Committee has adopted a code of ethics applicable to our corporate General Partner’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, as well as the principal accounting officer, controller, or other employees of our corporate General Partner performing similar functions on behalf of the Partnership, if any. You may obtain a copy of this code of ethics, without charge, upon request by calling our Client Services Department at 800-557-4830 or 770-243-8282.

ITEM 11.    COMPENSATION OF GENERAL PARTNERS AND AFFILIATES.

As of December 31, 2004, the Partnership has not made any payments to Leo F. Wells, III as compensation for serving as our General Partner.

See Item 13, “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions,” for a description of the fees incurred by the Partnership payable to the General Partners and affiliates during the year ended December 31, 2004.

Page 22

Table of Contents

ITEM 12.    SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT.

No limited partner owns beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding units of the Partnership.

Set forth below is the security ownership of management as of February 28, 2005:

No arrangements exist which would, upon execution thereof, result in a change in control of the Partnership.

ITEM 13.    CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS.

The compensation and fees we pay to the General Partners and their affiliates in connection with our operations are as follows:

Interest in Partnership Cash Flow and Net Sale Proceeds

The General Partners receive a subordinated participation in net cash flow from operations equal to 10% of net cash flow after the limited partners have received preferential distributions equal to 8% of their adjusted capital contribution. The General Partners also receive a subordinated participation in net sale proceeds and net financing proceeds equal to 15% of residual proceeds available for distribution after the limited partners have received a return of their adjusted capital contribution plus a 12% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contribution. The General Partners have not received any distributions of net cash flow from operations or net sale proceeds for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Property Management and Leasing Fees

In consideration for asset management and the management and leasing of our properties, we pay Wells Management, an affiliate of our General Partners, management and leasing fees equal to the lesser of (a) of the gross revenues collected monthly, 3% for management services and 3% for leasing services, 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. Management and leasing fees are paid by the Joint Ventures and, accordingly, included in equity in income of joint venture in the accompanying Statement of Operations. The Partnership’s share of management and leasing fees and lease acquisition costs incurred through the Joint Ventures was $64,797, $133,861, and $110,520 for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, respectively.

Real Estate Commissions

In connection with the sale of our properties, the General Partners or their affiliates may receive commissions not exceeding the lesser of (a) 50% of the commissions customarily charged by other brokers in arm’s-length transactions involving comparable properties in the same geographic area or (b) 3% of the gross sales price of the property, and provided that payments of such commissions will be made only after limited partners have received prior distributions totaling 100% of their capital contributions plus a 6% cumulative return on their adjusted capital contributions. The General Partners or their affiliates received no real estate commissions in 2004.

Page 23

Table of Contents

Administration Reimbursement

Wells Capital 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 time spent on each fund by individual administrative personnel. During 2004, 2003, and 2002, the Partnership reimbursed $94,124, $50,616, and $42,383, respectively, to Wells Capital and Wells Management for these services. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, administrative reimbursements of $4,879 and $0 are included in due to affiliates in the accompanying balance sheets, respectively. In addition, Wells Capital pays for certain operating expenses of the Partnership (“bill-backs”) directly and invoices the Partnership for the reimbursement thereof on a monthly basis. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, bill-backs of $1,491and $0 are included in due to affiliates in the accompanying balance sheets, respectively.

ITEM 14.    PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES.

Preapproval Policies and Procedures

The Financial Oversight Committee preapproves all auditing and permissible nonauditing services provided by our independent registered public accountants. The approval may be given as part of the Financial Oversight Committee’s approval of the scope of the engagement of our independent registered public accountants or on an individual basis. The preapproval of certain audit-related services and certain nonauditing services not exceeding enumerated dollar limits may be delegated to one or more of the Financial Oversight Committee’s members, but the member to whom such authority is delegated shall report any preapproval decisions to the full Financial Oversight Committee. Our independent registered public accountants may not be retained to perform the nonauditing services specified in Section 10A(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fees Paid to the Independent Registered Public Accountants

During the year ended December 31, 2004, Ernst & Young LLP (“Ernst & Young”) served as our independent registered public accountants and provided certain tax and other services. Ernst & Young has served as our independent registered public accountants since July 3, 2002. The aggregate fees billed to the Partnership for professional accounting services, including the audit of the Partnership’s annual financial statements by Ernst & Young for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, are set forth in the table below.

For purposes of the preceding table, the professional fees are classified as follows:

Page 24

Table of Contents

Since May 6, 2003, the effective date of the SEC Rules requiring audit committees to approve all services provided by independent registered public accountants, 100% of the services performed by Ernst & Young described above under the captions “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees,” and “All Other Fees” were approved in advance by a member of the Financial Oversight Committee.

PART IV

ITEM 15.    EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.

(a) 1. The financial statements are contained on pages F-2 through F-46 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the list of the financial statements contained herein is set forth on page F-1, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

(a) 2. Schedule III – Real Estate Assets and Accumulated Depreciation

(b) The Exhibits filed in response to Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed on the Exhibit Index attached hereto.

(c) See (a) 1 above.

Page 25

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 26

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT INDEX

TO

2004 FORM 10-K

OF

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.

The following documents are filed as exhibits to this report. Those exhibits previously filed and incorporated herein by reference are identified below by an asterisk. For each such asterisked exhibit, there is shown below the description of the previous filing. Exhibits which are not required for this report are omitted.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Page F-1

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The General Partners of

Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, partners’ capital, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in the index at Item 15(a). These financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Partnership’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and schedule based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Wells Real Estate Fund III, L.P. at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia

March 10, 2005

Page F-2

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.

BALANCE SHEETS

DECEMBER 31, 2004 AND 2003

ASSETS

LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS’ CAPITAL

See accompanying notes.

Page F-3

Table of Contents

WELLS REAL ESTATE FUND III, L.P.

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

FOR THE YEARS ENDED

DECEMBER 31, 2004, 2003, AND 2002