10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X]

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008

[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SEURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________to _________

Commission file number 0-16116

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

(Exact name of registrant as specified 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)

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

[X] Yes [ ] No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer [ ]	Accelerated filer [ ]
Non-accelerated filer [ ] (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company [X]

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

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 (in thousands, except unit data)

	June 30,	December 31,
	2008	2007
	(Unaudited)	(Note)
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$    91	$   155
Receivables and deposits	44	26
Other assets	217	210
Investment property:
Land	540	540
Buildings and related personal property	8,214	8,045
	8,754	8,585
Less accumulated depreciation	(4,256)	(4,055)
	(4,498)	4,530
	$ 4,850	$ 4,921
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable	$    41	$    66
Tenant security deposit liabilities	39	35
Due to affiliates (Note B)	2,392	2,191
Accrued property taxes	78	146
Other liabilities	108	117
Mortgage note payable	4,335	4,429
	6,993	6,984
Partners' Deficit:
General partner	(181)	(180)
Limited partners (12,420 units issued and
outstanding)	(1,962)	(1,883)
	(2,143)	(2,063)
	$ 4,850	$ 4,921

Note:

The consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2007 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date but does not include all the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)

	Three Months Ended		Six Months Ended
	June 30,		June 30,
	2008	2007	2008	2007
Revenues:
Rental income	$   471	$   445	$   941	$   890
Other income	66	64	121	118
Total revenues	537	509	1,062	1,008
Expenses:
Operating	277	261	565	544
General and administrative	31	34	60	63
Depreciation	102	95	201	189
Interest	121	133	246	264
Property taxes	33	36	70	72
Total expenses	564	559	1,142	1,132
Net loss	$   (27)	$   (50)	$   (80)	$  (124)
Net loss allocated to general
partner (1%)	$    --	$    (1)	$    (1)	$    (1)
Net loss allocated to limited
partners (99%)	(27)	(49)	(79)	(123)
	$   (27)	$   (50)	$   (80)	$  (124)
Net loss per limited partnership unit	$ (2.17)	$ (3.94)	$ (6.36)	$ (9.90)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(Unaudited)

(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, 2007	12,420	$  (180)	$(1,883)	$(2,063)
Net loss for the six months
ended June 30, 2008	--	(1)	(79)	(80)
Partners' deficit
at June 30, 2008	12,420	$  (181)	$(1,962)	$(2,143)

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)

	Six Months Ended
	June 30,
	2008	2007
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$   (80)	$  (124)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by
operating activities:
Bad debt expense	18	24
Depreciation	201	189
Amortization of loan costs	5	5
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits	(36)	(6)
Other assets	(12)	(52)
Accounts payable	(2)	(19)
Due to affiliates	114	132
Tenant security deposit liabilities	4	(1)
Accrued property taxes	(68)	(75)
Other liabilities	(9)	--
Net cash provided by operating activities	135	73
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements	(192)	(131)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable	(94)	(88)
Advances from affiliate	87	139
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities	(7)	51
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents	(64)	(7)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	155	87
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$    91	$    80
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest	$   155	$   161
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:
Property improvements and replacements included in accounts
payable	$    11	$     7

Included in property improvements and replacements for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 are approximately $34,000 and $16,000, respectively, of property improvements and replacements, which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note A – Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. (the "Partnership" or the "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 8-03 of Regulation S-X.  Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of Angeles Realty Corporation II (the "General Partner" and a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2008 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.

Note B – 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 $51,000 and $49,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which are included in operating expenses.

Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $41,000 and $42,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively, which is included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 are construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $13,000 and $8,000, respectively.  At June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, approximately $242,000 and $207,000, respectively, of reimbursements and accrued interest was due to affiliates of the General Partner and is included in due to affiliates.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, during the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the General Partner, advanced the Partnership approximately $87,000 and $139,000, respectively, to fund operating expenses and capital improvements at the investment property. Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2%, or 7.00% at June 30, 2008. Interest of approximately $79,000 and $92,000 was charged during the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. At June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the total outstanding advances and accrued interest due to AIMCO Properties, L.P. was approximately $2,150,000 and $1,984,000, respectively, and is included in due to affiliates. The Partnership may receive additional advances of funds from AIMCO Properties, L.P. although AIMCO Properties, L.P. is not obligated to provide such advances.  For more information on AIMCO Properties, L.P., including co pies of its audited balance sheet, please see its reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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 six months ended June 30, 2008, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $23,000 for hazard insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration. Additional charges will be incurred by the Partnership during 2008 as other insurance policies renew later in the year. The Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $47,000 for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration during the year ended December 31, 2007.

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 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 u nits; 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. The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal issued an opinion on February 20, 2008 affirming the order approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto. On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant’s Petition for Re-Hearing.  On May 21, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied Appellant’s Petition for Review.  Objector has until August 19, 2008 to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

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.

As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, were defendants in a lawsuit, filed as a collective action in August 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week (“overtime claims”).  The plaintiffs also contended that AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call" (“on-call claims”).  In March 2007, the court in the District of Columbia decertified the collective action.  In July 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed individual cases in Federal court in 22 jurisdictions.  In the second quarter 2008, AIMCO Properties, L.P. settled the overt ime cases involving 652 plaintiffs and established a framework for resolving the 88 remaining “on-call” claims and the attorneys’ fees claimed by plaintiffs’ counsel.  As a result, the lawsuits asserted in the 22 Federal courts will be dismissed.  At this time, affiliates of the General Partner are attempting to obtain additional information to determine the most equitable allocation of settlement amounts and attorneys’ fees.  The General Partner is uncertain as to the amount of loss, if any, allocable to the Partnership.  Therefore, the Partnership cannot estimate whether a loss will occur or a potential range of loss.

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 national 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 2.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS

OF OPERATIONS  

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements in certain circumstances. Certain information included in this Report contains or may contain information that is forward-looking, including, without limitation, statements regarding the effect of redevelopments, the Partnership’s future financial performance, including the Partnership’s ability to maintain current or meet projected occupancy and rent levels, and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and, in addition, will be affected by a variety of risks and factors that are beyond the Partnership’s control including, without limitation: natural disasters such as hurricanes; national and local economic conditions; the general level of interest rates; energy costs; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Partner ship’s property and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Partnership operates; financing risks, including the risk that the Partnership’s cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including fluctuations in real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; insurance risks; development risks; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting or defending claims and any adverse outcomes; and possible environmental liabilities, including costs, fines or penalties that may be incurred due to necessary remediation of contamination of properties presently owned or previously owned by the Partnership. Readers should carefully review the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and the other documents the Partnership files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex. The following table sets forth the average occupancy for the property for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007:

	Average Occupancy
Property	2008	2007
Lakewood Apartments	96%	97%
Tomball, Texas

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 mortgage loans, 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 wi ll 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 three and six months ended June 30, 2008 was approximately $27,000 and $80,000, respectively, compared to net loss of approximately $50,000 and $124,000 for the corresponding periods in 2007. The decrease in net loss for both periods is due to an increase in total revenues, partially offset by an increase in total expenses.  

Total revenues increased for both periods due to an increase in rental income. Other income remained relatively constant for both periods. Rental income increased for both periods primarily due to an increase in the average rental rate, partially offset by a decrease in occupancy at the Partnership’s investment property.

Total expenses increased for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 due to increases in operating and depreciation expenses, partially offset by a decrease in interest expense.  Property tax and general and administrative expenses remained relatively constant for both periods.  Operating expenses increased for both periods due to an increase in utility expenses, partially offset by a decrease in routine maintenance expense at the property. Depreciation expense increased for both periods due to property improvements and replacements placed into service during the past twelve months at Lakewood Apartments. The decrease in interest expense is primarily a result of scheduled principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering Lakewood Apartments, which reduced the carrying balance of the loan, and a decrease in interest on advances from AIMCO Properties, L.P., as a result of a lower variable interest rate charged on such advances.< /P>

Included in general and administrative expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 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 June 30, 2008, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $91,000, compared to approximately $80,000 at June 30, 2007. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $64,000, from December 31, 2007, is due to approximately $192,000 and $7,000 of cash used in investing and financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $135,000 of cash provided by operating activities. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash used in financing activities consisted of principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering the investment property, partially offset by advances received from AIMCO Properties, L.P. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, during the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, AIMCO Properties, L.P., an affiliate of the General Partner, advanced the Partnership approximately $87,000 and $139,000, respectively, to fund operating expenses and capital improvements at the investment property. Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2%, or 7.00% at June 30, 2008. Interest of approximately $79,000 and $92,000 was charged during the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, respectively. At June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007, the total outstanding advances and accrued interest due to AIMCO Properties, L.P. was approximately $2,150,000 and $1,984,000, respectively, and is included in due to affiliates on the consolidated balance sheets. The Partnership may receive additional advances of funds from AIMCO Properties, L.P. although AIMCO Properties, L.P. is not obligated to provide such advances.  For more information on A IMCO Properties, L.P., including copies of its audited balance sheet, please see its reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

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 investment 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.  Capital improvements planned for the Partnership’s property are detailed below.

During the six months ended June 30, 2008, the Partnership completed approximately $169,000 of capital improvements at Lakewood Apartments, consisting primarily of kitchen and bath upgrades, HVAC improvements, and appliance and floor covering replacements. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow and advances from AIMCO Properties, L.P. 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 the remainder of 2008.  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, Partnership reserves or advances from AIMCO Properties, L.P., although AIMCO Properties, L.P. is not obligated to provide such advances.  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 $4,335,000 matures in January 2022, at which time the loan is scheduled to be fully amortized.

No distributions were made during the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of cash generated from operations, 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 June 30, 2008, 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 2008 or subsequent periods.

Other

In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 6,433 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 51.80% of the outstanding Units at June 30, 2008. 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 51.80% 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

The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. 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 4T.

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 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)

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting.

There have been no significant changes in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting (as 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 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 u nits; 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 act ion 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. The matter was argued and submitted and the Court of Appeal issued an opinion on February 20, 2008 affirming the order approving the settlement and judgment entered thereto. On March 12, 2008, the Court of Appeal denied Appellant’s Petition for Re-Hearing.  On May 21, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied Appellant’s Petition for Review.  Objector has until August 19, 2008 to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

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.

As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the General Partner, were defendants in a lawsuit, filed as a collective action in August 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week (“overtime claims”).  The plaintiffs also contended that AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call" (“on-call claims”).  In March 2007, the court in the District of Columbia decertified the collective action.  In July 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed individual cases in Federal court in 22 jurisdictions.  In the second quarter 2008, AIMCO Properties, L.P. settled the overt ime cases involving 652 plaintiffs and established a framework for resolving the 88 remaining “on-call” claims and the attorneys’ fees claimed by plaintiffs’ counsel.  As a result, the lawsuits asserted in the 22 Federal courts will be dismissed.  At this time, affiliates of the General Partner are attempting to obtain additional information to determine the most equitable allocation of settlement amounts and attorneys’ fees.  The General Partner is uncertain as to the amount of loss, if any, allocable to the Partnership.  Therefore, the Partnership cannot estimate whether a loss will occur or a potential range of loss.

ITEM 6.

EXHIBITS

See Exhibit Index.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly 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
Date: August 13, 2008	By:   /s/Martha L. Long
	Martha L. Long
	Senior Vice President
Date: August 13, 2008	By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters
	Stephen B. Waters
	Vice President

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 Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended 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.

EX-31

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martha L. Long, certify that:

1.

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

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 registrant of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant'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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)),  for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2008

/s/Martha L. Long

Martha L. Long

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

EX-31

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

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

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 registrant of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant'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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)),  for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2008

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

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

EX-32

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-Q of Angeles Opportunity Properties, Ltd. (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 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: August 13, 2008

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Name: Stephen B. Waters

Date: August 13, 2008

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.