DEAR BRUCE: My son lives in Carmichael, Calif. An existing mortuary (not a cemetery) added a crematory that is 70 feet from his back-patio door. There is a Catholic school within 1,000 feet of the crematory stack. My son and his neighbors took the issue to court on code violations and lost (they did not appeal the building permit in the allowable 10 days) but are going to try court again based on public nuisance. This is a modest-income neighborhood. The crematory can afford to keep this in court until the neighbors run out of money. Do you have any suggestions that would help the neighborhood proceed with their case? -- N.R., Elk Grove, Calif.

DEAR N.R.: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless the mortuary violates specific codes, it would seem that they have a right to do what they're doing. While your son missed the appeal process' 10-day requirement, there is nothing to say that the appeal would have been looked upon favorably. You mentioned that there is a school and a crematory stack; I take it your son objects to the smoke and odor. Whether either of these things is in violation is another matter. Your son and his neighbors will discuss this matter with counsel. I suspect that you will be told that there is nothing more than an outside chance of being successful. Whether the mortuary could be persuaded to add some type of filter on their stack should be explored. If that would clear up most of the problem, this would be a satisfactory answer and a great deal less expensive for all sides.

DEAR BRUCE: My sister lives in North Carolina. Her boyfriend passed away a year ago, dying without a will. He has a daughter and ex-wife who live in the same state. Both of them are married and to date have not had themselves appointed to administrate his estate. He did not own a home. He has two trucks and an old car that he planned to restore. He also has a car trailer and some tools. His credit cards certainly are in excess of his assets. His life insurance has gone to the beneficiary, my sister, who had to pay the funeral expenses and cemetery costs. My sister's name was not on any of his possessions. The problem is, his possessions are at my sister's home, and she does not want to get herself appointed administrator of his estate to dissolve his assets and apply any of the proceeds to the creditors, as this would be a mess. My sister prefers not to deal with his daughter, who initially wanted to handle things, as she is immature and not pleasant to deal with. My guess is the daughter realizes now that his unpaid bills far exceed the assets and has given up on this matter. The ex-wife has not shown any interest either. How does my sister get rid of his trucks, etc., from her property, so she can get on with her life? -- A.L., via e-mail

DEAR A.L.: Brought down to its essence, nobody wants this stuff -- it's all junk, with the possible exception of the tools. Your sister may be fortunate and find a yard that will take the trucks, the car, etc., without bills of sale, which are required. In the absence of that, have her call the city or community and tell them that there are abandoned vehicles on her property and that she would like assistance in having them removed. Most cities recognize this problem and have a mechanism in place to handle this. The fact that he didn't have a will doesn't mean a whole lot, since he didn't have any assets.

DEAR BRUCE: I lost my job at the age of 48. I am now pursuing new employment. I have from my previous employer a guaranteed pension of $43,000 per year, which will start June 1 and go on for the rest of my life. I know I am fortunate to have that. My question pertains to the distribution of the funds. The first option would be to take the whole amount per month and no surviving-spouse benefit upon my death. This would mean that, upon my death, the benefit would stop and my spouse would have no income from this for the rest of her life. The second option is to take a reduced amount with a 50-percent surviving-spouse benefit, which would pay the spouse upon my death $1,500 for the rest of her life should she outlive me. To accept this option, our initial benefit would be reduced to $2,875 per month. The third option would be to take a 75-percent surviving-spouse benefit, and her income would be $2,000 per month upon my death. It would seem to me that a better option would be to take out an additional renewable term-life policy for, say, $500,000, which, since I am in good health, would only cost about $200 to $300 per year. Then, should I pass before my spouse, it would give her an additional half-million, and, even if not invested, would give her the same $2,000 per month for more than 20 years. Am I right in my thoughts that the term will be a better deal? -- R.S., via e-mail

DEAR R.S.: It seems to me that you have thought this out very well. The term insurance option is far and away the best. If you pass away, your wife, and not the insurance company, will have the cash. If you survive, which is very likely for a long period of time, the cost is modest and certainly a whole lot less than taking the reduced-pension benefit. When I was reading your letter, I was already thinking about recommending the term insurance, and, at the very end, you answered your own questions.