DEAR BRUCE: I have encountered two instances where after incurring expenses and never getting a bill in an expedient time frame, the company has billed me after a year has passed. Is this legal? -- Carol in Pennsylvania DEAR CAROL: I have experienced instances of the kind. While having sloppy bookkeeping is not a good business practice, it's not illegal. The fact that they didn't bill you for 12 months does not excuse you from having the obligation. They could not, however, legitimately charge you interest for that period of time. You failed to mention whether you contacted the companies and asked why the bill had not been rendered.

DEAR BRUCE: I recently turned 62. People keep giving me conflicting advice about when to take Social Security. Right now mine is worth only $500 and I'm not paying into it anymore. At age 70, it will double. My income now pays the bills. Some people are advising me to take the Social Security and invest it rather than waiting till age 70 because we don't know what will happen to Social Security in the future and investing it till then will give me a nice cushion that will be hard to match after age 70. What if my present income becomes unavailable to me due to bad health or disability of some kind and I have only $500 a month coming in? I can't pay my bills on $500 a month. My income now is from odd jobs, babysitting, yard work, errands, etc. -- M.A., via e-mail

DEAR M.A.: Yours is a very common question: "Should I collect now or wait until later?" How long do you plan on living? If you live past where the lines cross, somewhere around age 77, then it would pay you not to collect now because you would collect more on a monthly basis and then you have to live for a number of years to achieve complete parity. Given your limited income and since there will be no taxes on the Social Security money that will be paid because of your small income, I would suggest that you might want to increase your lifestyle a little and start collecting. If, through some stroke of fortune, you live to be 100, then you will have collected less. I would take it and run.

DEAR BRUCE: My wife and I are in our 60s with two sons, one who is the executor of our will. Most of our estate is in our nice home. Should we do a living trust or is a will all we need? Can probate be avoided? -- J.W., via e-mail

DEAR J.W.: You can avoid probate by putting your home and other assets into a living trust, but I can't see any reason in the world to do that. Probate is a relatively painless process for one who has an uncomplicated estate, which is what described. A properly executed will, drawn by an attorney indicating that your two sons are your heirs, should be sufficient. The only thing that I would urge you to consider is that your executor, your son, will be directed to put the home up for sale at his earliest convenience. Should one or the other wish the home, they are directed to agree on a buyout number. If both want the home, it should be settled by simple lottery. Or, if you prefer, they can bid in increments of $100, and the highest bidder will get the house, and 50 percent of those proceeds will be directed to the "loser." I understand that there have been so many books, papers, articles, etc., written about the horrors of probate, but in most cases, they are enormous exaggerations. I see no reason for the expense other than the privacy that a trust affords.