What Harry says: I hope you gave him the money by issuing a check. If so, your canceled check should reveal the name of his bank. Armed with this information, contact the sheriff's office in your county and go after that account. If he closed the account, you'll have to find specific assets that he owns (another bank account, a truck, tools, a building, office furniture and equipment, etc.), and have the sheriff go after those for you. One of the biggest mistakes a homeowner can make is to pay a contractor in advance. This has proven to be true over and over again in every state of the union. It's OK to pay for work already done as the job progresses. No matter how many times this warning is issued by me and many others, it still happens too frequently.

Dear Harry: I have what they call a "survivor benefit plan" so my pension payments would go to my wife if I died first. Unfortunately, she died late last year. Since then, I have tried to get them to substitute one of my children as the beneficiary. They continue to refuse my request. My pension was reduced quite a bit in order to get my wife in on it. The human resources chief at the company sent me a detailed letter, that I'm enclosing, which gives the reason, but to me it's just gobbledygook. I think they're trying to slip out of a bad deal for them. Can you tell me if they're right, and why?

What Harry says: Sorry, but I'm on their side. When you made your original election to have survivor's benefits, they considered both your age and your wife's age in order to determine how much less the payments would be to accommodate both of you. That's it. Since your child's age never entered the calculation, you cannot substitute a child for her. If you named the child as the beneficiary up front (and your plan may not have allowed this), your pension payments would have been much, much lower.

Dear Harry: This is just a quick note to share with you a thought about the stimulus rebate. Based on the income guidelines I have read, single persons having an income above $75,000 will get no rebate. In the third quarter of 2007, I received a lump-sum severance package that put me above the income limit. That means I won't get a rebate even though I'm still unemployed. There was no alternative to the stated limit. I know of many others who will be affected in the same way. Why didn't anyone think that those who had unusual spikes in income or who became unemployed wouldn't get the rebate? Where were all the geniuses who worked on this in Washington?

What Harry says: We live in an imperfect world. The bill creating the rebate went through Congress very quickly. Neither the members of the Bush administration nor the members of Congress took the time needed for a careful analysis. Even the geniuses were perhaps too eager to get the law passed. If you had written to your congressman and our senators, it may have gotten the eye of someone who could make a difference. It's not too late to do that. Laws can be amended.

Dear Harry: Over the years, my wife and I have had a rather rocky marriage. In a recent session with our counselor, he recommended that we eliminate one point of contention by equalizing how our assets are owned. He suggested that I transfer a good part of my IRA to her since this seemed the easiest thing to transfer. However, I'm concerned that such a transfer might not be allowed by IRS. Did I not read something to this effect in your column a long time ago? What's the deal, here?

What Harry says: You did. There are only two ways that an IRA can be transferred to another person without it being deemed a withdrawal that is subject to tax and a possible penalty. The first is on the death of the owner. The second is under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order in a divorce. If you want to equalize your asset ownership, do it with CDs, bonds or stock, or even real estate, but not with your IRA.

Dear Harry: My girlfriend and I purchased a home earlier this year. We agreed that whoever is the survivor should own the house outright. I was told by some of our neighbors that the survivor will get the house without our doing anything. However, I remember hearing something about the "rights of the survivor" from a lawyer. We have been told that we need to have wills to leave the house to each other. Can you clear up our confusion? We have told our children what we plan, and they all agree that it's OK with them. We have left bequests to them that are kind of generous. Incidentally, I know you'll be pleased to know that we are both regular blood donors.

What Harry says: Don't you feel great after donating blood? Such donations are the only way you can give life as a gift. Read the title to the house. If it says "joint owners with right of survivorship," or similar language, you don't have to do anything. If it does not have that provision, you can have a new deed drawn up that will have it. Check the cost with a couple of real estate brokers and get it done. Be sure to change the name on your homeowner's insurance, as well. You should have wills in any event, regardless of what the title says. That will provide for the disposition of your assets as you see fit, not as the State requires.

Dear Harry: Over the last few years, my mother has been losing her ability to think clearly. We have been urging her to give me or my brother power of attorney so we could access her bank account to pay her bills if she lost it completely. The latest report from her doctor is not encouraging, and she shortly won't be able to care for her own bills, checks, and the like. She still refuses to give one of us power of attorney. Is there something we can do short of using our own money?

What Harry says: Unfortunately, the process is not a pleasant one. You'll need to get the court to appoint one of you. I strongly suggest you see a lawyer to help you go through this. I always recommend that even very young adults appoint someone to have a power of attorney for legal matters as well for medical matters. Young and old are both prone to accidents and illnesses that no one can predict. It's well worth the little effort it takes to do this.

Dear Harry: My mother had a safe deposit box at the Broad and Chestnut office of Philadelphia National Bank. She had not visited it in many years, so she was not even aware that the bank is no longer there and no longer in existence. We could not find any evidence of payment of the fees, so we looked further into her files and found that she had a "package" deal with the bank for a checking account and the box. Her checking account is now with Wachovia. She insists that she never changed banks. Is Wachovia the successor bank to PNB? How do we go about finding her safe deposit box?

What Harry says: Wachovia is the ultimate successor to Philadelphia National Bank. I am pretty certain that they moved all the old boxes to the vault at the Wachovia on the northeast corner of Broad and Walnut (the Fidelity Building). She should be able to get access to it with her key and proper identification. *

Write Harry Gross c/o the Daily News, Box 7788, Philadelphia, PA 19101. Harry urges all his readers to give blood - contact the American Red Cross at 800-GIVE LIFE.