PEOPLE v. WESTOAKS INVESTMENT

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

 >>

Filed
5/23/06>>

 >>

 >>

style='mso-bidi-font-style:normal'> >>

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'> style='font-size:13.0pt;color:black'>CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""> class=MsoFootnoteReference>*>>

 >>

 >>

style='font-size:13.0pt'>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA>>

style='font-size:13.0pt'> >>

style='font-size:13.0pt'>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT>>

style='font-size:13.0pt'> >>

style='font-size:13.0pt'>DIVISION THREE>>

style='font-size:13.0pt'> >>

style='font-size:13.0pt'> >>

style='font-size:13.0pt'> >>

THE PEOPLE ex rel. WAYNE STRUMPFER, as Commissioner of Corporations, etc.,>>  >>             Plaintiff,>>  >>             v.>>  >> WESTOAKS INVESTMENT #27 et al.,>>  >> style='mso-tab-count:1'>            Defendants and Respondents.>>  >>  >> LAWRENCE L. MATHENEY, as County Treasurer-Tax Collector, etc., et. al.,             Objectors and Appellants.>>   style='font-size:13.0pt'>>>

B178628>>  >>             (Los Angeles County>>             Super. Ct. No. C 756611)>>   style='mso-bidi-font-size:13.0pt;color:windowtext'>>>

 >>

 >>

style='mso-tab-count:1'>            APPEAL from an order of the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. 
Reversed and remanded with directions.>>

style='font-size:13.0pt'>            Noel
A. Klebaum, County Counsel, and John E. Polich, Assistant County Counsel, for Objectors
and Appellants.>>

style='mso-tab-count:1'>            Richard Weissman for Defendant and
Respondent Westoaks Investment #27.>>

style='mso-tab-count:1'>            Law Offices of Roger L. Stanard and
Roger L. Stanard for Defendants and Respondents Westoaks Investment #58 and
Joint Venture 58.>>

 >>

style='mso-bidi-font-weight:normal'>___________________________________________________________

 >>

 >>

 >>

Story
Continued from Part I ………>>

 >>

 >>

 >>

Westoaks Investment #58 is correct when it asserts
that the legislative history on the addition of subdivision (c) to section
4985.2 is â€