FORM 10-QSB—QUARTERLY OR TRANSITIONAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

10KSB 1 aopl1206.htm FORM 10-QSB—QUARTERLY OR TRANSITIONAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

Form 10-KSB

(Mark One)

[X]

ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________to _________

Commission file number 0-16116

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

(Name of small business issuer in its charter)


California	95-4052473
(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)

Issuer's telephone number (864) 239-1000

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:

None

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

Units of Limited Partnership Interest

(Title of class)

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___

Check if there is no disclosure of delinquent filers in response to Item 405 of Regulation S-B contained in this form, and no disclosure will be contained, to the best of the registrant's knowledge in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-KSB or any amendment to this Form 10-KSB. [X]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes [ ] No[X]

State issuer's revenues for its most recent fiscal year. $1,874,000

State the aggregate market value of the voting partnership interests held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were sold, or the average bid and asked prices of such partnership interests as of December 31, 2006. No market exists for the limited partnership interests of the Registrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can be determined.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

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; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes, and possible environmental liabilities. 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.

PART I

Item 1.

Description of Business

Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") is a publicly held limited partnership organized under the California Uniform Limited Partnership Act pursuant to a Certificate of Agreement of Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "Partnership Agreement") dated June 29, 1984, as amended. The Partnership's general partner is Angeles Realty Corporation II, (the "General Partner"), a California corporation. The General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership is to terminate on December 31, 2035 unless terminated prior to such date.

The Partnership is engaged in the business of operating and holding real estate properties for investment. In 1988 and 1989, during its acquisition phase, the Partnership acquired one apartment complex, three warehouses, and a 70% interest in a joint venture project which ultimately acquired an apartment complex. In 1992, the Partnership acquired the remaining 30% interest of the joint venture. The Partnership continues to own and operate one apartment property. See "Item 2. Description of Property".

The Partnership, through its public offering of Limited Partnership units, sold 12,425 units aggregating $12,425,000. The General Partner contributed capital in the amount of $1,000 for a 1% interest in the Partnership. Since its initial offering, the Partnership has not received, nor are the limited partners required to make, additional capital contributions. The General Partner of the Partnership intends to maximize the operating results and, ultimately, the net realizable value of the Partnership's property in order to achieve the best possible return for the investors. Such results may best be achieved by holding and operating the property or through a property sale or exchange, refinancing, debt restructuring or relinquishment of the asset. The Partnership evaluates its holding periodically to determine the most appropriate strategy for the asset.

The Partnership has no employees. Property management and administrative services are provided by the General Partner and by agents retained by the General Partner. An affiliate of the General Partner has been providing such property management services.

Risk Factors

The real estate business in which the Partnership is engaged is highly competitive. There are other residential properties within the market area of the Partnership's property. The number and quality of competitive properties, including those which may be managed by an affiliate of the General Partner, in such market area could have a material effect on the rental market for the apartments at the Partnership's property and the rents that may be charged for such apartments. While the General Partner and its affiliates own and/or control a significant number of apartment units in the United States, such units represent an insignificant percentage of total apartment units in the United States and competition for apartments is local.

Laws benefiting disabled persons may result in the Partnership's incurrence of unanticipated expenses. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or ADA, all places intended to be used by the public are required to meet certain Federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Likewise, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, or FHAA, requires apartment properties first occupied after March 13, 1990 to be accessible to the handicapped. These and other Federal, state and local laws may require modifications to the Partnership's property, or restrict renovations of the property. Noncompliance with these laws could result in the imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants and also could result in an order to correct any non-complying feature, which could result in substantial capital expenditures. Although the General Partner believes that the Partnership’s property is substantially in compliance with the present requirements, the Partnership may incur unanticipated expenses to comply with the ADA and the FHAA.

Both the income and expenses of operating the property owned by the Partnership are subject to factors outside of the Partnership's control, such as changes in the supply and demand for similar properties resulting from various market conditions, increases/decreases in unemployment or population shifts, changes in the availability of permanent mortgage financing, changes in zoning laws, or changes in patterns or needs of users. In addition, there are risks inherent in owning and operating residential properties because such properties are susceptible to the impact of economic and other conditions outside of the control of the Partnership.

From time to time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI, and the United States Department of Homeland Security issue alerts regarding potential terrorist threats involving apartment buildings. Threats of future terrorist attacks, such as those announced by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, could have a negative effect on rent and occupancy levels at the Partnership’s property. The effect that future terrorist activities or threats of such activities could have on the Partnership’s operations is uncertain and unpredictable. If the Partnership were to incur a loss at the property as a result of an act of terrorism, the Partnership could lose all or a portion of the capital invested in the property, as well as the future revenue from the property.

There have been, and it is possible there may be other, Federal, state and local legislation and regulations enacted relating to the protection of the environment. The Partnership is unable to predict the extent, if any, to which such new legislation or regulations might occur and the degree to which such existing or new legislation or regulations might adversely affect the property owned by the Partnership.

The Partnership monitors its property for evidence of pollutants, toxins and other dangerous substances, including the presence of asbestos. In certain cases environmental testing has been performed which resulted in no material adverse conditions or liabilities. In no case has the Partnership received notice that it is a potentially responsible party with respect to an environmental clean up site.

A further description of the Partnership's business is included in "Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation" included in "Item 6" of this Form 10-KSB.

Item 2.

Description of Property

The following table sets forth the Partnership's investment in property:


	Date of
Property	Purchase	Type of Ownership	Use

Lakewood Apartments	11/01/89	Fee ownership subject to	Apartment
Tomball, Texas		a first mortgage (1)	256 units

(1)

The property is held by a limited partnership in which the Partnership owns a 99% interest.

Schedule of Property

Set forth below for the Partnership's property is the gross carrying value, accumulated depreciation, depreciable life, method of depreciation and Federal tax basis.


	Gross
	Carrying	Accumulated	Depreciable	Method of	Federal
Property	Value	Depreciation	Life	Depreciation	Tax Basis
	(in thousands)				(in thousands)

Lakewood
Apartments	$8,304	$3,675	5-40 yrs	S/L	$5,297

See "Note A – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" to the consolidated financial statements included in "Item 7. Financial Statements" for a description of the Partnership's depreciation and capitalization policies.

Schedule of Property Indebtedness

The following table sets forth certain information relating to the loan encumbering the Partnership's property.


	Principal				Principal
	Balance At	Stated			Balance
	December 31,	Interest	Period	Maturity	Due At
Property	2006	Rate(1)	Amortized	Date	Maturity (2)
	(in thousands)				(in thousands)
Lakewood Apartments
1st mortgage	$4,607	7.05%	240 months	01/2022	$ --

(1)

Fixed rate mortgage.

(2)

See "Item 7. Financial Statements - Note B – Mortgage Note Payable" for information with respect to the Partnership's ability to prepay this loan and other specific details about the loan.

Schedule of Rental Rate and Occupancy

Average annual rental rate and occupancy for 2006 and 2005 for the property is as follows:


	Average Annual		Average Annual
	Rental Rate		Occupancy
	(per unit)
Property	2006	2005	2006	2005

Lakewood Apartments	$7,091	$6,885	94%	84%

(1)

The General Partner attributes the increase in occupancy at Lakewood Apartments to increased marketing and resident retention efforts.

As noted under "Item 1. Description of Business", the real estate industry is highly competitive. The property is subject to competition from other residential apartment complexes in the area. The General Partner believes that the property is adequately insured. The residential property is an apartment complex which leases its units for lease terms of one year or less. No tenant leases 10% or more of the available rental space. The property is in good physical condition, subject to normal depreciation and deterioration as is typical for assets of this type and age.

Schedule of Real Estate Taxes and Rates

Real estate taxes and rates in 2006 for the property is as follows:


	2006	2006
	Billing	Rate
	(in thousands)

Lakewood Apartments	$147	2.92%

Capital Improvements

Lakewood Apartments

During the year ended December 31, 2006, the Partnership completed approximately $330,000 of capital improvements at Lakewood Apartments, consisting primarily of electrical breakers, recreational facility improvements, interior decoration, glass replacement, kitchen and bath counter resurfacing, major landscaping, office computers and appliance, air conditioning unit, and floor covering replacements. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow and advances from an affiliate of the General Partner. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property. While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2007. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.

Capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations, advances from an affiliate of the General Partner, or from Partnership reserves. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.

Item 3.

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 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 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”. The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. 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, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court. 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 November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion. On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings. The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged. The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objector’s Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objector’s Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objector’s Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction. Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006. On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. On December 14, 2006, Objector filed his Appellant’s Brief. The Partnership and its affiliates, as well as counsel of the Settlement Class, have not yet filed their briefs in response.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In June 2005 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and that issue is now fully briefed. The defendants anticipate that the Court will soon set oral argument on the defendants’ decertification motion. Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court. The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Item 4.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

The unit holders of the Partnership did not vote on any matters through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise during the quarter ended December 31, 2006.

PART II

Item 5.

Market for the Partnership's Equity and Related Partner Matters

The Partnership, a publicly-held limited partnership, offered and sold 12,425 limited partnership units (the "Units") during its offering period through June 25, 1988. As of December 31, 2006, there are 12,425 Units issued and outstanding held by 878 Limited Partners of record. Affiliates of the General Partner owned 6,426 units or 51.72% at December 31, 2006. No public trading market has developed for the Units, and it is not anticipated that such a market will develop in the future.

No distributions were made during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of cash generated from operations and the timing of debt maturity, property sale and/or refinancing. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. In light of the significant amounts accrued and payable to affiliates of the General Partner at December 31, 2006, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after planned capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners in 2007 or subsequent periods. See “Item 2. Description of Property – Capital Improvements” for information relating to anticipated capital expenditures at the property.

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 6,426 Units in the Partnership representing 51.72% of the outstanding Units at December 31, 2006. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unit holders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 51.72% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Item 6.

Management's Discussion and Analysis or Plan of Operation

This item should be read with the consolidated financial statements and other items contained elsewhere in this report.

The Partnership’s financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment property, interest rates on the mortgage loan, costs incurred to operate the investment property, general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions; accordingly, there is no guarantee that the General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnership’s financial results.

Results of Operations

The Partnership's net loss for the year ended December 31, 2006 was approximately $313,000 compared to net loss of approximately $407,000 for the year ended December 31, 2005. Net loss decreased for the year ended December 31, 2006 due to an increase in total revenues partially offset by an increase in total expenses. Total revenues increased due to an increase in rental income and other income. Rental income increased due to an increase in occupancy and the average rental rate and a decrease in bad debt expense. Other income increased primarily due to an increase in tenant utility reimbursements.

Total expenses increased for the year ended December 31, 2006 due to increases in operating, depreciation, and interest expense, partially offset by a decrease in property tax expense. Operating expense increased due to increases in advertising, insurance, and property management fees at Lakewood Apartments. Advertising expense increased due to increases in web advertising and leasing promotions. Insurance expense increased due to an increase in the hazard insurance premium. Property management fees increased at Lakewood Apartments due to an increase in rental income. Interest expense increased primarily due to an increase in interest on advances from an affiliate of the General Partner as a result of higher average balances outstanding and an increase in the interest rate charged on such advances. Depreciation expense increased due to capital improvements placed in service during the past twelve months, which are now being depreciated. Property tax expense decreased due to a successful appeal of the assessed value for a prior year and the resulting adjustment to the current year assessed value and property tax rate.

Included in general and administrative expense for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 are management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement, costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At December 31, 2006, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $87,000 compared to approximately $42,000 at December 31, 2005. The increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $45,000 is due to approximately $375,000 and $142,000 of cash provided by financing and operating activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $472,000 of cash used in investing activities. Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances received from an affiliate of the General Partner partially offset by principal payments on the mortgage encumbering the investment property. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.

The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state, and local legal and regulatory requirements. The General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property. While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2007. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property. Capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations, advances from an affiliate of the General Partner, or from Partnership reserves. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.

The Partnership’s assets are thought to be generally sufficient for any near-term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering Lakewood Apartments of approximately $4,607,000 matures in January 2022, at which time the loan is scheduled to be fully amortized.

No distributions were made during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of cash generated from operations and the timing of the debt maturity, property sale and/or refinancing. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. In light of the significant amounts accrued and payable to affiliates of the General Partner at December 31, 2006, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after planned capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners in 2007 or subsequent periods.

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 6,426 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 51.72% of the outstanding Units at December 31, 2006. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unit holders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 51.72% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

A summary of the Partnership’s significant accounting policies is included in "Note A – Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies" which is included in the consolidated financial statements in "Item 7. Financial Statements". The General Partner believes that the consistent application of these policies enables the Partnership to provide readers of the consolidated financial statements with useful and reliable information about the Partnership’s operating results and consolidated financial condition. The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements as well as reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Judgments and assessments of uncertainties are required in applying the Partnership’s accounting policies in many areas. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity.

Impairment of Long-Lived Asset

Investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless the carrying amount of the asset is not recoverable. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the property may not be recoverable, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by comparing the carrying amount to the Partnership’s estimate of the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate undiscounted future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the estimated fair value of the property.

Real property investment is subject to varying degrees of risk. Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership’s investment property. These factors include, but are not limited to, general economic climate; competition from other apartment communities and other housing options; local conditions, such as loss of jobs or an increase in the supply of apartments that might adversely affect apartment occupancy or rental rates; changes in governmental regulations and the related cost of compliance; increases in operating costs (including real estate taxes) due to inflation and other factors, which may not be offset by increased rents; and changes in tax laws and housing laws, including the enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating multi-family housing. Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership’s asset.

Revenue Recognition

The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.

Item 7.

Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

LIST OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Consolidated Balance Sheet - December 31, 2006

Consolidated Statements of Operations - Years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Partners' Deficit - Years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows - Years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Partners

Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in partners' deficit, and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2006. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements 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 audits 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 consolidated financial position of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. at December 31, 2006, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2006, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Greenville, South Carolina

March 15, 2007

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

(in thousands, except unit data)

December 31, 2006


Assets
Cash and cash equivalents		$ 87
Receivables and deposits		47
Other assets		194
Investment property (Notes B and E):
Land	$ 540
Buildings and related personal property	7,764
	8,304
Less accumulated depreciation	(3,675)	4,629
		$ 4,957

Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable		$ 65
Tenant security deposit liabilities		37
Due to affiliates (Note D)		1,788
Accrued property taxes		147
Other liabilities		99
Mortgage note payable (Note B)		4,607

Partners' Deficit
General partner	$ (177)
Limited partners (12,425 units issued and
outstanding)	(1,609)	(1,786)
		$ 4,957

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per unit data)


	Years Ended December 31,
	2006	2005
Revenues:
Rental income	$ 1,691	$ 1,438
Other income	183	155
Total revenues	1,874	1,593

Expenses:
Operating	1,103	1,025
General and administrative	107	105
Depreciation	353	274
Interest	501	390
Property taxes	123	206
Total expenses	2,187	2,000

Net loss (Note C)	$ (313)	$ (407)

Net loss allocated to general partner (1%)	$ (3)	$ (4)
Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%)	(310)	(403)
	$ (313)	$ (407)

Net loss per limited partnership unit	$(24.95)	$(32.43)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(in thousands, except unit data)


	Limited
	Partnership	General	Limited
	Units	Partner	Partners	Total

Original capital contributions	12,425	$ 1	$12,425	$12,426

Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2004	12,425	$ (170)	$ (896)	$(1,066)

Net loss for the year ended
December 31, 2005	--	(4)	(403)	(407)

Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2005	12,425	(174)	(1,299)	(1,473)

Net loss for the year ended
December 31, 2006	--	(3)	(310)	(313)

Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2006	12,425	$ (177)	$(1,609)	$(1,786)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)


	Years Ended December 31,
	2006	2005
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$ (313)	$ (407)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation	353	274
Amortization of loan costs	10	10
Bad debt expense	23	39
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	(49)	(36)
Other assets	(2)	(11)
Accounts payable	(32)	52
Tenant security deposit liabilities	1	6
Accrued property taxes	(59)	16
Other liabilities	(4)	2
Due to affiliates	214	82
Net cash provided by operating activities	142	27

Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(472)	(992)

Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable	(165)	(155)
Advances from affiliates	540	934
Net cash provided by financing activities	375	779

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	45	(186)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year	42	228

Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year	$ 87	$ 42

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$ 331	$ 348

Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
Property improvements and replacements in accounts payable	$ 16	$ 158

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

December 31, 2006

Note A - Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Organization: Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") is a California limited partnership organized in June 1984 to operate and hold residential and commercial real estate properties. The Partnership's general partner is Angeles Realty Corporation II ("ARC II" or the "General Partner"), which is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership will terminate on December 31, 2035, unless terminated prior to such date. As of December 31, 2006, the Partnership operates one residential property located in Texas.

Principles of Consolidation: The consolidated financial statements of the Partnership include its 99% limited partnership interest in Lakewood AOPL Ltd. The general partner of the consolidated partnership may be removed by the Partnership, therefore, the partnership is controlled and consolidated by the Partnership. All significant interentity balances have been eliminated.

Use of Estimates: The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Allocations to Partners:

Allocations of Profits, Gains and Losses - In accordance with the Partnership Agreement (the "Partnership Agreement"), any gain from the sale or other disposition of Partnership assets will be allocated first to the General Partner to the extent of the amount of any Incentive Interest (as defined below) to which the General Partner is entitled. Any gain remaining after said allocation will be allocated to the Partners in proportion to their interests in the Partnership; provided that the gain shall first be allocated to Partners with negative account balances, in proportion to such balances, in an amount equal to the sum of such negative capital account balances. The Partnership will allocate other profits and losses 1% to the General Partner and 99% to the Limited Partners.

Distributions - Except as discussed below, the Partnership will allocate distributions 1% to the General Partner and 99% to the Limited Partners.

Upon the sale or other disposition, or refinancing, of any asset of the Partnership, the Distributable Net Proceeds shall be distributed as follows: (i) First, to the Partners in proportion to their interests until the Limited Partners have received proceeds equal to their Original Capital Investment applicable to the property; (ii) Second, to the Partners until the Limited Partners have received distributions from all sources equal to their 6% Cumulative Distribution, (iii) Third, to the General Partner until it has received its cumulative distributions in an amount equal to 3% of the aggregate disposition prices of all real properties, mortgages or other investments sold (Initial Incentive Interest); (iv) Fourth, to the Partners until the Limited Partners have received distributions equal to their 4% (not compounded) Cumulative Distribution, with certain Limited Partners receiving priority distributions ranging from 2% to 6% per annum (not compounded); and (v) Fifth, thereafter, 76% to the Limited Partners in proportion to their interests and 24% to the General Partner (Final Incentive Interest).

Depreciation: Depreciation is provided by the straight-line method over the estimated lives of the investment property and related personal property. For Federal income tax purposes, the accelerated cost recovery method is used for real property over 19 years for additions after May 8, 1985 and before January 1, 1987. As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, for additions after December 31, 1986, the modified accelerated cost recovery method is used for depreciation of (1) real property over 27½ years and (2) personal property additions over 5 years.

Cash and Cash Equivalents: Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand and in banks. At certain times, the amount of cash deposited at a bank may exceed the limit on insured deposits. Cash balances include approximately $72,000 at December 31, 2006 that are maintained by an affiliated management company on behalf of affiliated entities in cash concentration accounts.

Investment Property: Investment property consists of one apartment complex and is stated at cost. The Partnership capitalizes costs incurred in connection with capital expenditure activities, including redevelopment and construction projects, other tangible property improvements and replacements of existing property components. Costs including interest, property taxes and operating costs associated with redevelopment and construction projects are capitalized during periods in which redevelopment and construction projects are in progress in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 34 “Capitalization of Interest Costs” and SFAS No. 67, “Accounting for Costs and the Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Properties.” Costs incurred in connection with capital projects are capitalized where the costs of the project exceed $250. Included in these capitalized costs are payroll costs associated with time spent by site employees in connection with the planning, execution and control of all capital expenditure activities at the property level. The Partnership did not capitalize any costs related to interest, property taxes or operating costs during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Capitalized costs are depreciated over the useful life of the asset. Expenditures for ordinary repairs, maintenance and apartment turnover costs are expensed as incurred.

In accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets”, the Partnership records impairment losses on long-lived assets used in operations when events and circumstances indicate the assets might be impaired and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amounts of those assets. No adjustments for impairment of value were necessary for the years ending December 31, 2006 and 2005.

Deferred Costs: Loan costs of approximately $199,000, net of accumulated amortization of approximately $49,000, are included in other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The loan costs are amortized over the term of the related loan agreement. Amortization expense was approximately $10,000 for each of the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 and is included in interest expense on the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Amortization expense is expected to be approximately $10,000 for the years 2007 through 2011.

Leasing commissions and other direct costs incurred in connection with successful leasing efforts are deferred and amortized over the terms of the related leases. Amortization of these costs is included in operating expenses.

Security Deposits: The Partnership requires security deposits from lessees for the duration of the lease. The security deposits are refunded when the tenant vacates, provided the tenant has not damaged the space and is current on rental payments.

Leases: The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.

Segment Reporting: SFAS No. 131, "Disclosure about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information" established standards for the way that public business enterprises report information about operating segments in annual financial statements and requires that those enterprises report selected information about operating segments in interim financial reports. It also established standards for related disclosures about products and services, geographic areas, and major customers. As defined in SFAS No. 131, the Partnership has only one reportable segment.

Advertising Costs: Advertising costs of approximately $87,000 and $57,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, are charged to expense as incurred and are included in operating expenses.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments: SFAS No. 107, "Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments", as amended by SFAS No. 119, "Disclosures about Derivative Financial Instruments and Fair Value of Financial Instruments", requires disclosure of fair value information about financial instruments, whether or not recognized in the balance sheet, for which it is practicable to estimate fair value. Fair value is defined in the SFAS as the amount at which the instruments could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. The Partnership believes that the carrying amounts of its financial instruments (except for long term debt) approximates their fair values due to the short term maturity of these instruments. The Partnership estimates the fair value of its long-term debt by discounting future cash flows using a discount rate commensurate with that currently believed to be available to the Partnership for similar term, fully amortizing long-term debt. The fair value of the Partnership's long term debt, at the Partnership’s incremental borrowing rate, approximates its carrying balance.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements: In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued (“FASB”) SFAS No. 154 “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections”, which replaces APB Opinion No. 20 and SFAS No. 3, and changes the requirements for the accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principle. This statement is effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. The Partnership adopted SFAS 154 effective January 1, 2006. The adoption of SFAS 154 did not have a material effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS no. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other standards require assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value and does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the information used in developing fair value estimates. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, such as the reporting entity’s own data. SFAS No. 157 requires fair value measurements to be disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnership does not anticipate that the adoption of SFAS No. 157 will have a material effect on the Partnership’s financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”. SFAS No. 159 permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between entities that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnership has not yet determined whether it will elect the fair value option for any of its financial instruments.

Note B – Mortgage Note Payable

The principal term of the mortgage note payable is as follows:


	Principal	Monthly			Principal
	Balance At	Payment	Stated		Balance
	December 31,	Including	Interest	Maturity	Due At
Property	2006	Interest	Rate	Date	Maturity
	(in thousands)				(in thousands)
Lakewood Apartments
1^st mortgage	$4,607	$ 41	7.05%	01/2022	$ --

The mortgage note payable is a fixed rate mortgage that is non-recourse and is secured by a pledge of the Partnership’s property and by a pledge of revenues from the property. The mortgage note payable includes a prepayment penalty if repaid prior to maturity. Further, the property may not be sold subject to existing indebtedness.

Scheduled principal payments of the mortgage note payable subsequent to December 31, 2006, are as follows (in thousands):


2007	$ 178
2008	191
2009	205
2010	219
2011	235
Thereafter	3,579
	$ 4,607

Note C – Income Taxes

Taxable income or loss of the Partnership is reported in the income tax returns of its partners. Accordingly, no provision for income taxes is made in the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership. The following is a reconciliation of reported net loss and Federal taxable loss (in thousands, except per unit data):


	2006	2005

Net loss as reported	$ (313)	$ (407)
Add (deduct):
Depreciation differences	5	(18)
Unearned income	(21)	16
Miscellaneous	(22)	(4)

Federal taxable loss	$ (351)	$ (413)

Federal taxable loss per
limited partnership unit	$ 0.01	$(28.35)

For 2006 and 2005, allocation under the Internal Revenue Code Section 704(b) results in the limited partners being allocated a non-pro rata amount of taxable income or loss.

The following is a reconciliation between the Partnership’s reported amounts and Federal tax basis of net assets (in thousands):


Net liabilities as reported	$(1,786)
Land and buildings	249
Accumulated depreciation	419
Syndication and distribution costs	1,838
Other	16
Net assets – Federal tax basis	$ 736

Note D – Transactions with Affiliated Parties

The Partnership has no employees and depends on the 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 reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.

Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership’s property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $93,000 and $77,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, which is included in operating expenses on the consolidated statements of operations.

Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $83,000 and $187,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, which is included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 are construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $30,000 and $130,000, respectively. At December 31, 2006, approximately $130,000 in reimbursements was due to the General Partner and is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $540,000 and $934,000, respectively, to fund capital improvements and operating expenses at the investment property. Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2% or 10.25% at December 31, 2006. Interest of approximately $151,000 and $33,000 was charged during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. At December 31, 2006, the Partnership owed approximately $1,658,000 of principal and accrued interest, which is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Subsequent to December 31, 2006, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced approximately $117,000 to fund real estate taxes and operating expenses at the investment property.

The Partnership insures its property up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability, and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the General Partner. During the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $44,000 and $27,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration.

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 6,426 limited partnership units (the “Units”) in the Partnership representing 51.72% of the outstanding Units at December 31, 2006. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unit holders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 51.72% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.

Note E – Investment Property and Accumulated Depreciation


		Initial Cost
		To Partnership
		(in thousands)

			Buildings	Cost
			and Related	Capitalized
			Personal	Subsequent to
Description	Encumbrance	Land	Property	Acquisition
	(in thousands)			(in thousands)

Lakewood Apartments	$ 4,607	$ 483	$ 3,491	$ 4,330


	Gross Amount At Which Carried
		At December 31, 2006
		(in thousands)


		Buildings
		And Related
		Related
		Personal		Accumulated	Date	Depreciable
Description	Land	Property	Total	Depreciation	Acquired	Life-Years
				(in thousands)

Lakewood Apartments	$ 540	$7,764	$8,304	$3,675	11/01/89	5-40

Reconciliation of “Investment Property and Accumulated Depreciation”:


	Years Ended December 31,
	2006	2005
	(in thousands)
Investment Property
Balance at beginning of year	$7,974	$6,824
Property improvements and replacements	330	1,150
Balance at end of year	$8,304	$7,974

Accumulated Depreciation
Balance at beginning of year	$3,322	$3,048
Additions charged to expense	353	274
Balance at end of year	$3,675	$3,322

The aggregate cost of the investment property for Federal income tax purposes at December 31, 2006 and 2005 is approximately $8,553,000 and $8,194,000, respectively. Accumulated depreciation for Federal income tax purposes at December 31, 2006 and 2005, is approximately $3,256,000 and $2,908,000, respectively.

Note F – 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 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 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.

The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership’s overall operations.

AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be “on-call.” Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In June 2005 the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. Approximately 1,049 individuals opted in to the class. The defendants moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and that issue is now fully briefed. The defendants anticipate that the Court will soon set oral argument on the defendants’ decertification motion. Because the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify state subclasses, in September 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and in November 2005 in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court. The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the outcome of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation matters involving it or its investment property that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business.

Environmental

Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its property, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its property.

Mold

The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure. Affiliates of the General Partner have implemented policies, procedures, third-party audits and training and the General Partner believes that these measures will prevent or eliminate mold exposure and will minimize the effects that mold may have on residents. To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions. Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the General Partner can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Item 8.

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountant on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 8a.

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 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 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 fourth quarter of 2006 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 8b.

Other Information

None.

PART III

Item 9.

Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters and Control Persons and Corporate Governance; Compliance with Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act

The names of the directors and executive officers of Angeles Realty Corporation II (“ARC II”), the Partnership’s General Partner, their ages and the nature of all positions with ARC II presently held by them are as follows:


Name	Age	Position

Martha L. Long	47	Director and Senior Vice President
Harry G. Alcock	44	Director, Executive Vice President and
		Chief Investment Officer
Timothy Beaudin	48	Executive Vice President and Chief Development
		Officer
Miles Cortez	63	Executive Vice President, General Counsel
		and Secretary
Patti K. Fielding	43	Executive Vice President – Securities and Debt
Thomas M. Herzog	44	Executive Vice President and Chief
		Financial Officer
Robert Y. Walker, IV	41	Executive Vice President
Scott W. Fordham	39	Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting
		Officer
Stephen B. Waters	45	Vice President

Martha L. Long has been a Director and Senior Vice President of the General Partner since February 2004. Ms. Long has been with AIMCO since October 1998 and has served in various capacities. From 1998 to 2001, Ms. Long served as Senior Vice President and Controller of AIMCO and the General Partner. During 2002 and 2003, Ms. Long served as Senior Vice President of Continuous Improvement for AIMCO.

Harry G. Alcock was appointed as a Director of the General Partner in October 2004 and was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of the General Partner in February 2004 and has been Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer of AIMCO since October 1999. Mr. Alcock has had responsibility for acquisition and financing activities of AIMCO since July 1994, serving as Vice President from July 1996 to October 1997 and as Senior Vice President from October 1997 to October 1999.

Timothy Beaudin was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Development Officer of the General Partner and AIMCO in October 2005. Prior to this time, beginning in 2005, Mr. Beaudin was with Catellus Development Corporation, a San Francisco, California-based real estate investment trust. During his last five years at Catellus, Mr. Beaudin served as Executive Vice President, with management responsibility for development, construction and asset management.

Miles Cortez was appointed Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of the General Partner in February 2004 and of AIMCO in August 2001. Prior to joining AIMCO, Mr. Cortez was the senior partner of Cortez Macaulay Bernhardt & Schuetze LLC, a Denver law firm, from December 1997 through September 2001.

Patti K. Fielding was appointed Executive Vice President - Securities and Debt of the General Partner in February 2004 and of AIMCO in February 2003. Ms. Fielding was appointed Treasurer of AIMCO in January 2005. Ms. Fielding is responsible for debt financing and the treasury department. Ms. Fielding previously served as Senior Vice President - Securities and Debt of AIMCO from January 2000 to February 2003. Ms. Fielding joined AIMCO in February 1997 as a Vice President.

Thomas M. Herzog was appointed Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner and AIMCO in November 2005 and was appointed Executive Vice President of the General Partner and AIMCO in July 2005. In January 2004, Mr. Herzog joined AIMCO as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer and of the General Partner in February 2004. Prior to joining AIMCO in January 2004, Mr. Herzog was at GE Real Estate, serving as Chief Accounting Officer & Global Controller from April 2002 to January 2004 and as Chief Technical Advisor from March 2000 to April 2002. Prior to joining GE Real Estate, Mr. Herzog was at Deloitte & Touche LLP from 1990 to 2000.

Robert Y. Walker, IV was appointed Senior Vice President of the General Partner and AIMCO in August 2005 and served as the Chief Accounting Officer of the General Partner and AIMCO from November 2005 to January 2007. Mr. Walker was promoted to Executive Vice President of the General Partner and AIMCO in July 2006 and in January 2007 became the chief financial officer of Conventional Property Operations for AIMCO. From June 2002, until he joined AIMCO, Mr. Walker served as senior vice president and chief financial officer at Miller Global Properties, LLC, a Denver-based private equity, real estate fund manager. From May 1997 to June 2002, Mr. Walker was employed by GE Capital Real Estate, serving as global controller from May 2000 to June 2002.

Scott W. Fordham was appointed Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer in January 2007 of the General Partner and AIMCO. Prior to joining AIMCO, Mr. Fordham served as Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Brandywine Realty Trust. Prior to the merger of Prentiss Properties Trust with Brandywine Realty Trust, Mr. Fordham served as Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Prentiss Properties Trust and was in charge of the corporate accounting and financial reporting groups. Prior to joining Prentiss Properties Trust in 1992, Mr. Fordham worked in public accounting with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Stephen B. Waters was appointed Vice President of the General Partner and AIMCO in April 2004. Mr. Waters previously served as a Director of Real Estate Accounting since joining AIMCO in September 1999. Mr. Waters has responsibility for partnership accounting with AIMCO and serves as principal officer of the General Partner.

One or more of the above persons are also directors and/or officers of a general partner (or general partner of a general partner) of limited partnerships which either have a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or are subject to the reporting requirements of Section 15(d) of such Act. Further, one or more of the above persons are also officers of Apartment Investment and Management Company and the general partner of AIMCO Properties, L.P., entities that have a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or are subject to the reporting requirements of Section 15 (d) of such Act.

The board of directors of the General Partner does not have a separate audit committee. As such, the board of directors of the General Partner fulfills the functions of an audit committee. The board of directors has determined that Martha L. Long meets the requirement of an "audit committee financial expert".

The directors and officers of the General Partner with authority over the Partnership are all employees of subsidiaries of AIMCO. AIMCO has adopted a code of ethics that applies to such directors and officers that is posted on AIMCO's website (www.AIMCO.com). AIMCO's website is not incorporated by reference to this filing.

Item 10.

Executive Compensation

None of the directors and officers of the General Partner received any remuneration from the Partnership during the year ended December 31, 2006.

Item 11.

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management

Except as noted below, no person or entity was known by the Partnership to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Limited Partnership Units of the Partnership as of December 31, 2006.


Entity	Number of Units	Percentage

AIMCO IPLP, L.P.	405	3.26%
(an affiliate of AIMCO)
Cooper River Properties, LLC	969	7.80%
(an affiliate of AIMCO)
AIMCO Properties, L.P.	5,052	40.66%
(an affiliate of AIMCO)

Cooper River Properties, LLC and AIMCO IPLP, L.P. are indirectly and ultimately owned by AIMCO. Their business addresses are 55 Beattie Place, Greenville, SC 29601.

AIMCO Properties, L.P. is indirectly and ultimately controlled by AIMCO. Its business address is 4582 S. Ulster St. Parkway, Suite 1100, Denver, Colorado 80237.

No director or officer of the General Partner owns any Units.

Item 12.

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

Affiliates of the General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $93,000 and $77,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively, which is included in operating expenses on the consolidated statements of operations included in “Item 7. Financial Statements”.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 an affiliate of the General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $540,000 and $934,000, respectively, to fund capital improvements and operating expenses at the investment property. Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2% or 10.25% at December 31, 2006. Interest of approximately $151,000 and $33,000 was charged during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. At December 31, 2006, the Partnership owed approximately $1,658,000 of principal and accrued interest, which is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet included in “Item 7. Financial Statements”. Subsequent to December 31, 2006, an affiliate of the General Partner advanced approximately $117,000 to fund real estate taxes and operating expenses at the investment property.

Neither of the General Partner's directors is independent under the independence standards established for New York Stock Exchange listed companies as both directors are employed by the parent of the General Partner.

Item 13.

Exhibits

See Exhibit Index.

Item 14.

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The General Partner has reappointed Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors to audit the consolidated financial statements of the Partnership for 2007. The aggregate fees billed for services rendered by Ernst & Young LLP for 2006 and 2005 are described below.

Audit Fees. Fees for audit services totaled approximately $33,000 and $36,000 for 2006 and 2005, respectively. Fees for audit services also include fees for the reviews of the Partnership's Quarterly Reports on Form 10-QSB.

Tax Fees. Fees for tax services totaled approximately $11,000 and $10,000 for 2006 and 2005, respectively.

SIGNATURES

In accordance with section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


	ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

	By: Angeles Realty Corporation II
	General Partner

	By: /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President

	By: /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

	Date: March 16, 2007

In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capitalized and on the dates indicated.


/s/Harry G. Alcock	Director and Executive	Date: March 16, 2007
Harry G. Alcock	Vice President

/s/Martha L. Long	Director and Senior	Date: March 16, 2007
Martha L. Long	Vice President

/s/Stephen B. Waters	Vice President	Date: March 16, 2007
Stephen B. Waters

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit Number

Description of Exhibit

3.1

Amendment Certificate and Agreement of the Limited Partnership filed in the Partnership's prospectus dated July 7, 1986, which is incorporated herein by reference

10.10

Multifamily Note dated December 6, 2001, between Lakewood AOPL and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, a California Corporation, refinancing the mortgage encumbering Lakewood Apartments filed in Annual Report on Form 10-KSB dated December 31, 2001 and is incorporated herein by reference.

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.

99.1

Partnership prospectus filed in registration statement dated June 26, 1987, which is incorporated herein by reference.

99.2

Agreement of Limited Partnership for AOP GP Limited Partnership, L.P. and Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. entered into on September 9, 1993.

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd.;

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;

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;

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

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: March 16, 2007

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

Senior Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd.;

(a)

(b)

(c)

(a)

(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: March 16, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 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: March 16, 2007

	/s/Stephen B. Waters
	Name: Stephen B. Waters
	Date: March 16, 2007

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.