CAM findings your firm can replicate
These case studies are built from public-record leases, CAM statements, and CAMAudit pipeline outputs. They show exactly what your firm delivers to clients: specific findings, dollar amounts, and the lease provisions that ground each dispute.
No matches. Clear the search to see the full list.
CVS pharmacy at Target: public-record insurance pass-through case study
A public-record CAM case study showing $5,952 in flagged insurance pass-through charges in a CVS pharmacy sublease inside Target.
Apparent overcharge
$5,952
Findings
2
High confidence
$5,952
Montgomery County office lease: base year and CAM cap case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $76,440 in apparent overcharges tied to a deflated base year and a controllable expense cap miss.
Apparent overcharge
$76,440
Findings
2
High confidence
$76,440
Brooklyn Terminal Market: bad-debt and overhead pass-through case study
A public-record municipal market case study showing $32,201.40 in apparent overcharges from doubtful accounts reserves and executive overhead allocations.
Apparent overcharge
$32,201
Findings
2
High confidence
$32,201
Clarendon Center: capital project pass-through case study
A public-record mixed-use lease case study showing $42,875 in apparent overcharges from lobby renovation soft costs and landlord overhead.
Apparent overcharge
$38,546
Findings
5
High confidence
$38,546
USPS Mt Vernon Plaza: pro-rata share error case study
A public-record strip-center case study showing how a 4.50% statement share versus a 4.24% lease share produced a $2,340.15 apparent overcharge.
Apparent overcharge
$2,340
Findings
1
High confidence
$2,340
Walgreens Thatcher Woods: parking lot capex pass-through case study
A public-record retail lease case study showing ~$18,746 in apparent overcharges from parking lot resurfacing and curb replacement billed through CAM.
Apparent overcharge
$18,746
Findings
2
High confidence
$18,746
Riverside County CA: management fee percentage cap overcharge case study
A public-record CAM case study showing $4,400 in management fee overcharges: landlord billed 11.1% effective rate against a 5% contractual cap.
Apparent overcharge
$4,400
Findings
1
High confidence
$4,400
GSA Cincinnati federal building: dollar-cap management fee overcharge case study
A public-record CAM case study showing $25,500 in management fee overcharges on a GSA lease: landlord billed $67,500 against a $42,875 absolute dollar cap.
Apparent overcharge
$25,500
Findings
1
High confidence
$25,500
Macerich Queen Creek AZ: CAM cap breach 4% non-cumulative case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $13,100 in CAM overcharges: landlord billed $127,500 against a $114,400 cap (4% over prior year $110,000).
Apparent overcharge
$13,100
Findings
1
High confidence
$13,100
Regency Pembroke Pines FL: CAM cap breach 5% non-cumulative case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $11,250 in CAM overcharges: landlord billed $108,900 against a $97,650 cap (5% over prior year $93,000).
Apparent overcharge
$11,250
Findings
1
High confidence
$11,250
Simon Copley Place MA: CAM cap breach 3% non-cumulative case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $8,340 in CAM overcharges: landlord billed $82,500 against a $74,160 cap (3% over prior year $72,000).
Apparent overcharge
$8,340
Findings
1
High confidence
$8,340
Whole Foods Breckinridge Crossing GA: utility double-billing case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $25,700 in utility double-billing: electricity and gas billed in CAM despite tenant's direct-pay lease obligation.
Apparent overcharge
$25,700
Findings
2
High confidence
$25,700
HEB Grocery San Antonio NW: utility double-billing case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $16,400 in utility double-billing: electricity and HVAC billed in CAM despite direct-pay obligations verified via CPS Energy records.
Apparent overcharge
$16,400
Findings
2
High confidence
$16,400
Amazon Seattle HQ: dedicated server room HVAC misclassification case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $28,500 in common area misclassification: dedicated server room HVAC pooled into shared CAM instead of billed directly.
Apparent overcharge
$28,500
Findings
1
High confidence
$28,500
Dollar General Shelby NC: tenant infrastructure misclassification case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $10,700 in common area misclassification: dedicated electrical panel and plumbing upgrades pooled into shared CAM.
Apparent overcharge
$10,700
Findings
2
High confidence
$10,700
AMC Burbank Town Center CA: pro-rata share overcharge case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $27,000 in pro-rata share overcharges: landlord applied 13.5% instead of the lease-specified 12.0%.
Apparent overcharge
$27,000
Findings
1
High confidence
$27,000
Clorox Park Center Oakland CA: pro-rata share overcharge case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $42,875 in pro-rata share overcharges: landlord applied 15.75% instead of the lease-specified 14.00%.
Apparent overcharge
$42,875
Findings
1
High confidence
$42,875
Florida DMS Tallahassee: base year stop ignored case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $59,500 in base year overcharges: landlord billed full current-year operating costs without applying the 2018 base year deduction.
Apparent overcharge
$59,500
Findings
2
High confidence
$59,500
Texas HHSC Austin: base year stop not applied case study
A public-record office lease case study showing $124,000 in base year overcharges: landlord billed full operating costs without applying the 2019 base year deduction.
Apparent overcharge
$124,000
Findings
2
High confidence
$124,000
Walgreens Houston Heights TX: controllable expense cap breach case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $84,400 in controllable expense cap overcharges: landlord billed $1,010,000 against a $925,600 cap (4% over prior year $890,000).
Apparent overcharge
$84,400
Findings
1
High confidence
$84,400
Kroger Midtown Atlanta GA: non-permitted insurance overcharge case study
A public-record retail CAM case study showing $30,900 in insurance overcharges: D&O and umbrella premiums passed through despite lease restricting insurance to property and general liability.
Apparent overcharge
$30,900
Findings
2
High confidence
$30,900
Starbucks Salinas Valley Memorial CA: true-up overcharge case study
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.
Apparent overcharge
$3,076
Findings
1
High confidence
$3,076
Clean checks: no clear overcharge
These reviews use public files. They found no clear extra charge. A good review does not force a claim.
Charleston County office lease: estimated payment true-up case study
A public-record government office case study where the pipeline surfaced a gross-up advisory on a $42,875 expense pool. The Rule 18 true-up finding from the prior pipeline run did not reproduce in the current multi-pass extraction.
No clear overchargeLA City DGS Wilshire Blvd: gross-up violation on fixed costs case study
A public-record office lease case study showing Rule 5 advisory findings on $135,600 in fixed tax and insurance costs that must not be grossed up.
No clear overchargeTravis County TX: gross-up advisory on insurance costs case study
A public-record office lease case study with Rule 5 advisory finding on $52,800 in property insurance that must not be included in gross-up calculations.
No clear overchargeMaricopa County AZ: property tax overallocation advisory case study
A public-record office lease case study with Rule 10 advisory finding on a $148,600 property tax line item requiring cross-check against assessor records.
No clear overchargeBroward County FL: tax appeal fee without refund credit case study
A public-record office lease case study showing Rule 10 advisory finding: $9,500 tax appeal fee billed with no corresponding refund credit despite a lease refund-back requirement.
Frequently asked questions
Why are these case studies relevant to my firm?
Each case study shows how CAMAudit's detection rules apply to real lease documents and reconciliation statements from public records. They demonstrate the findings your firm can deliver to clients: specific dollar amounts, the rule violated, and the lease provision that grounds the dispute.
Are these real CAM overcharges or illustrative examples?
These are built from public-record documents, including SEC EDGAR exhibits, municipal audit reports, and government procurement contracts. The lease language, reconciliation amounts, and detection rule outputs are real. No numbers are fabricated.
What types of overcharges show up most often in the case studies?
The case studies cover insurance pass-through violations, expense classification errors, math accuracy failures, excluded service charges, and landlord overhead pass-throughs. These are also the highest-frequency findings across the broader CAMAudit dataset.
How quickly can my firm reproduce these results for a client engagement?
CAMAudit runs checks in a partner workspace. The findings match the format shown here. Your firm reviews the work. Then your firm sends the branded report to the client.
Run these same detection rules on your client engagements
CAMAudit applies the same CAM forensic detection rules used in these public-record case studies. Upload a client lease and CAM bill. Your firm reviews the findings and sends the branded report to the client.