What findings did CAMAudit surface in the Starbucks Corporation case?

CAMAudit flagged 1 finding with an apparent overcharge of $3,076. Each finding cites the specific detection rule, dollar amount, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.

Can my firm reproduce these findings on a live client engagement?

Yes. CAMAudit applies the same CAM forensic detection rules to any lease and reconciliation your firm uploads. Partner firms receive findings in under 15 minutes and white-label branded report delivery for each completed audit.

Is Retail a common property type for CAM audit engagements?

CAMAudit handles all commercial property types: retail, office, industrial, mixed-use, and specialty. The detection rules apply wherever a tenant pays CAM or operating expenses under a lease with specific definitions, caps, or exclusion lists.

What is a correction package and does CAMAudit generate one?

A correction draft is a factual starting point that specifies each overcharge by rule, dollar amount, and lease provision. CAMAudit generates a draft grounded in the specific audit findings for advisor and counsel review.

Public-record case study

Starbucks Salinas Valley Memorial CA: true-up overcharge case study

Name: Starbucks Salinas Valley Memorial CA: true-up overcharge case study structured case-study facts
Creator: CAMAudit
Published: 2026-03-19

A public-record retail CAM case study showing $3,076 in true-up overcharges: landlord billed $11,500 reconciliation true-up against a correct amount of $8,424.

Starbucks Corporation2022 statementNNN leaseRetail

2022 total operating expenses: $285,600.

Tenant share: $11,424. Estimates paid: $3,000.

Correct true-up: $8,424. Billed: $11,500. Overcharge: $3,076.

What happened

Starbucks' Salinas Valley lease requires monthly CAM estimates with an annual true-up. For 2022: total operating expenses were $285,600, Starbucks' 4% share was $11,424, estimates paid were $3,000, making the correct true-up $8,424. The landlord billed $11,500, which is $3,076 above the correct amount, well outside the $57.12 tolerance threshold.

Findings from the pipeline

Rule 18: Estimated Payment True-Up Error

high confidence

$3,076

True-up billed (11500.00) exceeds expected (8424.00) by 3076.00

Math proof

Tenant share: 285600.00 x 0.04 = 11424.00; Estimates billed: 3000.00; Expected true-up: 11424.00 - 3000.00 = 8424.00; Landlord billed: 11500.00; Overcharge: 11500.00 - 8424.00 = 3076.00

Statement references

Reconciliation True-Up

Lease evidence

Monthly CAM estimates with annual reconciliation true-up.
Pro-rata share: 4.00% (3,840 SF / 96,000 SF).

Why this matters for your firm

True-up errors are often invisible because tenants focus on the total annual CAM cost rather than checking whether the year-end settlement correctly accounts for estimated payments already made. The math is simple but requires knowing both the annual total and the monthly estimates, data that appears in different parts of the reconciliation statement.

Correction package excerpt

Request for Cooperative Review of Certain Line Items. The automated review flagged a true-up overcharge of $3,076.00 : billed true-up of $11,500 exceeds the expected $8,424 (tenant share $11,424 minus estimates paid $3,000).

Detection guide

True-up error guide

Lease language

CAM reconciliation checklist

Frequently Asked Questions

Run these same detection rules on your client engagements

Upload a client lease and reconciliation. CAMAudit applies the same rule set used in this case study and delivers findings in under 15 minutes, with white-label report delivery under your firm brand.

Apply for partner access

Public-record note

This page summarizes public-record documents and CAMAudit output for educational and marketing purposes. It does not imply endorsement by Starbucks Corporation or any third party. Readers should review the underlying lease, statement, and dispute timeline for their own facts.