-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, N8GUpV79mBt4z5A0u7SmUx1J/h46UmJgNLFUYruFphh7JuzaTaIYRaY8mggP/WCB LP5iU9P8ihZT4/e3AXg3WQ== 0000711642-05-000630.txt : 20051114 0000711642-05-000630.hdr.sgml : 20051111 20051114140829 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000711642-05-000630 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 10QSB PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 1 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 20050930 FILED AS OF DATE: 20051114 DATE AS OF CHANGE: 20051114 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000736909 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: REAL ESTATE [6500] IRS NUMBER: 942930770 STATE OF INCORPORATION: CA FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 10QSB SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-13408 FILM NUMBER: 051199863 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 55 BEATTIE PLACE STREET 2: PO BOX 1089 CITY: GREENVILLE STATE: SC ZIP: 29602 BUSINESS PHONE: 8642391000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: POST & HEYMANN STREET 2: 5665 NORTHSIDE DRIVE NW CITY: ATLANTA STATE: GA ZIP: 30328 10QSB 1 cpf20.txt CPF20 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-QSB (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 [ ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT For the transition period from _________to _________ Commission file number 0-13408 CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX (Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter) California 94-2930770 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089 Greenville, South Carolina 29602 (Address of principal executive offices) (864) 239-1000 (Issuer's telephone number) Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ___ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ____ No __X__ PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX STATEMENT OF NET LIABILITIES IN LIQUIDATION (unaudited) (in thousands) September 30, 2005 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 16 Debt trustee escrow 765 781 Liabilities Other liabilities 160 Due to affiliates 85 Non-recourse promissory notes (Note A) 1,859 Estimated costs during the period of liquidation 121 2,225 Net liabilities in liquidation $(1,444) See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET LIABILITIES IN LIQUIDATION (Unaudited) (in thousands)
For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2005 2004 Net liabilities in liquidation at beginning of period $(1,332) $(1,027) Changes in net liabilities in liquidation attributed to: Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 13 (2) Decrease in debt trustee escrow (32) (59) (Increase) decrease in other liabilities (63) 11 Increase in due to affiliates (45) (40) Increase in non-recourse promissory notes and interest (55) (56) Decrease (increase) in estimated costs during the period of liquidation 70 (131) Net liabilities in liquidation at end of period $(1,444) $(1,304) See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) Note A - Basis of Presentation As of December 31, 1999, Century Properties Fund XX (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") adopted the liquidation basis of accounting. The Partnership's Nonrecourse Promissory Notes (the "Notes"), which had a balance of principal and accrued interest of approximately $1,859,000 at September 30, 2005, matured on November 30, 1998. The Notes bear interest at eight percent per annum. The Partnership was in default due to non-payment upon maturity. Fox Capital Management Corporation ("FCMC" or the "Managing General Partner") previously contacted the indenture trustee for the Notes and certain holders of the Notes regarding this default. On October 28, 1999, the Partnership entered into a forbearance agreement with the indenture trustee for a period of 390 days. In turn, the Partnership agreed to (a) deliver to the indenture trustee for the benefit of the note holders all of the accumulated cash of the Partnership, less certain reserves and anticipated operating expenses, (b) market all of its properties for sale, (c) deliver all cash proceeds from any sales to the indenture trustee until the Notes are fully satisfied and (d) comply with the reporting requirements under the indenture. At the expiration of the forbearance period, the Partnership had not sold all of its properties or satisfied the Notes. With the consent of the indenture trustee, the forbearance period was extended to December 15, 2001. The sale of the Partnership's remaining asset in October 2001 did not generate sufficient proceeds to pay off the Notes in full. The Managing General Partner is working with the debt trustee regarding a final payment to the noteholders. Once this payment is made, the Partnership is expected to terminate. The Managing General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership changed its basis of accounting for its financial statements at December 31, 1999, to the liquidation basis of accounting. Consequently, assets have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented at their estimated settlement amounts. The valuation of assets and liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower than amounts indicated and is based upon the Managing General Partner's estimates as of the date of the financial statements. Included in liabilities in the statement of net liabilities in liquidation as of September 30, 2005 is approximately $121,000 of costs that the Managing General Partner estimates will be incurred during the remaining period of liquidation based on the assumption that the liquidation process will be completed by March 31, 2006. Because the settlement of liabilities is based on the Managing General Partner's best estimates, the liquidation period may be shorter than projected or it may be extended beyond the projected period. Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties The Partnership has no employees and depends on the Managing General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides for certain payments to affiliates for services and as reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership. No such reimbursements were charged or paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004. During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, an affiliate of the Managing General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $45,000 to pay operating expenses. No interest was charged on this advance. At September 30, 2005, the Partnership owed approximately $85,000 for advances from affiliates. Note C - Contingencies In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its Managing General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain Managing General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement. On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order. The Managing General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with this case will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. On August 17, 2004, the Partnership was sued, along with the Managing General Partner, Fox Capital Management Corporation, and general partner, Fox Partners III. The suit was brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County by J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., ("Trustee") formerly Chase Manhattan Bank & Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee under the Trust Indenture dated as of February 22, 1984. The Trustee alleges claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on defendants' alleged breaches of their obligations under a Forbearance Agreement dated as of October 28, 1999. The Trustee seeks the payment of certain funds that it contends were improperly withheld or misappropriated under the Forbearance Agreement. In its breach of contract claim, the Trustee claims that it is entitled to $541,776 plus interest, which is comprised of management fees paid to Fox Partners III and outstanding reserves allegedly due to the Trustee. The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement wherein all the defendants will pay $700,000 for the settlement of this case as well as an additional case involving Century Properties Fund XXIII, an affiliate. The allocation on how those funds will be divided between the defendants is yet to be determined. The tentative settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized and documented. SEC Investigation The Central Regional Office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") continues its formal investigation relating to certain matters. Although the staff of the SEC is not limited in the areas that it may investigate, AIMCO believes the areas of investigation have included AIMCO's miscalculated monthly net rental income figures in third quarter 2003, forecasted guidance, accounts payable, rent concessions, vendor rebates, capitalization of payroll and certain other costs, tax credit transactions, and tender offers for limited partnership interests. AIMCO is cooperating fully. AIMCO is not able to predict when the investigation will be resolved. AIMCO does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the Managing General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's financial condition or results of operations. ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATIONS The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. As of December 31, 1999, Century Properties Fund XX (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") adopted the liquidation basis of accounting. The Partnership's Nonrecourse Promissory Notes (the "Notes"), which had a balance of principal and accrued interest of approximately $1,859,000 at September 30, 2005, matured on November 30, 1998. The notes bear interest at eight percent per annum. The Partnership was in default due to non-payment upon maturity. Fox Capital Management Corporation ("FCMC" or the "Managing General Partner") previously contacted the indenture trustee for the Notes and certain holders of the Notes regarding this default. On October 28, 1999, the Partnership entered into a forbearance agreement with the indenture trustee for a period of 390 days. In turn, the Partnership agreed to (a) deliver to the indenture trustee for the benefit of the note holders all of the accumulated cash of the Partnership, less certain reserves and anticipated operating expenses, (b) market all of its properties for sale, (c) deliver all cash proceeds from any sales to the indenture trustee until the Notes are fully satisfied and (d) comply with the reporting requirements under the indenture. At the expiration of the forbearance period, the Partnership had not sold all of its properties or satisfied the Notes. With the consent of the indenture trustee, the forbearance period was extended to December 15, 2001. The sale of the Partnership's remaining asset in October 2001 did not generate sufficient proceeds to pay off the Notes in full. The Managing General Partner is working with the debt trustee regarding a final payment to the noteholders. Once this payment is made, the Partnership is expected to terminate. As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership changed its basis of accounting for its financial statements at December 31, 1999 to the liquidation basis of accounting. Consequently, assets have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented at their estimated settlement amounts. The valuation of assets and liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower than amounts indicated and is based upon the Managing General Partner's estimates as of the date of the financial statements. During the nine months ended September 30, 2005, net liabilities in liquidation increased by approximately $112,000. The increase is due to increases in the accrued interest payable on the Notes, due to affiliates, other liabilities, and to a decrease in the debt trustee escrow partially offset by a decrease in the estimated costs during the period of liquidation. The estimated costs during the period of liquidation decreased due to the change in the period of liquidation partially offset by an increase in the expected legal and administrative expenses. During the nine months ended September 30, 2004, net liabilities in liquidation increased by approximately $277,000. The increase is due to increases in the accrued interest payable on the Notes, due to affiliates and in the estimated costs during the period of liquidation, and to a decrease in the debt trustee escrow, partially offset by a decrease in other liabilities. The estimated costs during the period of liquidation increased due to an increase in the expected legal and administrative expenses and an increase in the expected time required to liquidate the Partnership. Included in the statement of net liabilities in liquidation as of September 30, 2005 is approximately $121,000 of costs that the Managing General Partner estimates will be incurred during the period of liquidation based on the assumption that the liquidation process will be completed by March 31, 2006. Because the settlement of liabilities is based on the Managing General Partner's best estimates, the liquidation period may be shorter than projected or it may be extended beyond the projected period. In light of the maturity of the Notes, no distributions were made to the limited partners for the nine months ended September 30, 2005 and 2004. In addition to its indirect ownership of the Managing General Partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 3,950 limited partnership units in the Partnership representing 6.39% of the outstanding units at September 30, 2005. AIMCO and its affiliates also own 8,977 of the notes representing 9.10% of the outstanding notes at September 30, 2005. ITEM 3. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES (a) Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnership's management, with the participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Managing General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Managing General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures are effective. (b) Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting. PART II - OTHER INFORMATION ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its Managing General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain Managing General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement. On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order. The Managing General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with this case will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. On August 17, 2004, the Partnership was sued, along with the Managing General Partner, Fox Capital Management Corporation, and general partner, Fox Partners III. The suit was brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County by J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., ("Trustee") formerly Chase Manhattan Bank & Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee under the Trust Indenture dated as of February 22, 1984. The Trustee alleges claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment based on defendants' alleged breaches of their obligations under a Forbearance Agreement dated as of October 28, 1999. The Trustee seeks the payment of certain funds that it contends were improperly withheld or misappropriated under the Forbearance Agreement. In its breach of contract claim, the Trustee claims that it is entitled to $541,776 plus interest, which is comprised of management fees paid to Fox Partners III and outstanding reserves allegedly due to the Trustee. The parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement wherein all the defendants will pay $700,000 for the settlement of this case as well as an additional case involving Century Properties Fund XXIII, an affiliate. The allocation on how those funds will be divided between the defendants is yet to be determined. The tentative settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized and documented. ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION None. ITEM 6. EXHIBITS See Exhibit Index. SIGNATURES In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XX By: FOX PARTNERS III Its General Partner By: FOX CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Its Managing General Partner By: /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President By: /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President Date: November 14, 2005 EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit 2 NPI, Inc. Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 17, 1995, incorporated by reference to the Partnership's Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 17, 1995. 3.4 Agreement of Limited Partnership, incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Prospectus of the Partnership dated February 22, 1984, and November 8, 1984, and thereafter supplemented contained in the Partnership Registration Statement on Form S-11 (Reg. No. 2-88615). 31.1 Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 31.2 Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 32.1 Certification of the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Martha L. Long, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Century Properties Fund XX; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 14, 2005 /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President of Fox Capital Management Corporation, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Century Properties Fund XX; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: November 14, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President of Fox Capital Management Corporation, equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership Exhibit 32.1 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Century Properties Fund XX (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. /s/Martha L. Long Name: Martha L. Long Date: November 14, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Name: Stephen B. Waters Date: November 14, 2005 This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----