DEAR BRUCE: I am a 60-year-old female, recently widowed. I am going to be relocating from Missouri to Iowa. My house is currently for sale. I will get a fourth of the sale price, which is $114,900. I have a guaranteed monthly income of $2,500. My net worth is $216,000, not including the home sale. Would it be better for me to rent (I'm looking for a condo) or buy? -- J.B., Missouri

DEAR J.B.: There's a little more to making a decision here than just the dollars involved. In most parts of the country, condo prices are seriously reduced. However, along with the purchase goes responsibility. If you live in a rented apartment or home, generally the upkeep on the home would be the landlord's responsibility. In the case of a home the renter may be obliged to cut the grass, shovel snow, etc. You didn't indicate the market price of the condos you're looking at. Let us assume for the sake of this discourse that the net out of the house was put into the condo, rounded to $115,000. You're going to have at least a $5,000 annual interest cost (if you get a very good deal), condo fees, insurance, etc. It may very well be that a similar unit would rent for substantially less. On the other side of that, since the market is depressed and you are a relatively young woman, buying and nailing the relatively modest prices that are available today can be in your interest. You do realize that your ability to be mobile is somewhat restricted. If you're renting and you want to move again, you're gone. If you own it, you have to wait until someone else takes over the ownership. On balance, if you know the area where you are going to locate, you've been there before and you are absolutely certain that you're going to locate there, I would really do some bottom fishing and buy a unit at a very good price. This is not a bad time at all to buy a place and get a really good deal.

DEAR BRUCE: I recently came into some money and was thinking of paying off my second mortgage. I have two 30-year fixed mortgages at 5.375 percent. The first is conventional in terms of monthly payments that go toward principal and interest. However, the second mortgage is an interest-only for the first 10 years. Seeing as I have approximately nine years before I start paying on principal, would it be wise to pay off the second mortgage now?-- M.M., via e-mail

DEAR M.K.: I have never been a fan of "interest only" loans other than to a professional real-estate organization, and that certainly would not describe you or me. You didn't indicate the amount. Right now, a 5.4 percent interest mortgage is a very good rate. It's entirely possible that interest rates will go up severely. Nine years from now, not only could interest rates be higher, but you will be obliged to be making a principal payment, as well. You didn't indicate your age, but I would suggest that if you're able to retire the "interest only" mortgage, it would be to your advantage. This will effectively be a 5.4 percent return on your investments, since that's what this money in the second mortgage is costing you. While in the overall picture that's a pretty poor return, in today's world, at least temporarily, it is decent. For many people, it's going to be a terrible jolt when they have to start paying principal, as well.

DEAR BRUCE: My daughters received stock certificates from their aunt's estate. Do they have to pay taxes on them, and, if so, how is it figured? They are adults and on their own. -- B.B., via e-mail

DEAR B.W.: The taxes on the stock that your daughters received are the estate's responsibility. There is no tax to be paid by the heir. However, from the date that the stock becomes theirs, any dividends, splits or if the stock goes up and sold at a profit, all of these items must be paid by them. Since I assume this has happened very quickly, they're home free as far as the current value. It will be very much to their advantage to take note of the market on the day that the stock was transferred to your daughters. That way there will be no question as to the basis value when they do sell them.