§ 74.14     Equal Monthly Installments after BAPCPA
Cite as:    Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 74.14, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).

BAPCPA added a new periodic payment requirement to § 1325(a)(5) that will cause problems in some Chapter 13 cases. New § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) states: “(iii) if— (I) property to be distributed pursuant to this subsection is in the form of periodic payments, such payments shall be in equal monthly amounts.”1 The reference to “this subsection” means § 1325(a)(5). This new equal monthly payment requirement applies to every “allowed secured claim provided for by the plan” when periodic payments are provided.


“Periodic” is not defined by the new subsection or by any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code. How many payments do you suppose are required and on what schedule before payments become periodic? The second part of the new subsection requires that “such payments” shall be in “equal monthly amounts.” Does this mean that periodic payments have to be monthly payments? What about a Chapter 13 plan that is funded from the sale of an annual crop? Is a once-yearly payment periodic? And if it is, how can a once-a-year payment be made in equal monthly amounts? If either the debt contract or the debtor’s plan does not call for monthly payments, does this new subsection mandate (equal) monthly payments?


These aren’t hypothetical questions. Chapter 13 plans often include payments that are not monthly—for example, real estate taxes that are paid once a year. If a once-yearly payment is not periodic, then it is not subject to the equal amount mandate. Some real estate mortgages—especially farms and rural homesteads—are payable quarterly or semi-annually. How many payments a year are required before a distribution becomes periodic and must be made in equal monthly amounts?


Because the equal monthly amount requirement only applies to allowed secured claims provided for by the plan under § 1325(a)(5), the statute does not immediately resolve whether the new requirement applies to other treatments of secured claims. For example, § 1322(b)(5) permits curing default and maintaining payments with respect to any secured (or unsecured) claim on which the last payment is due after the final payment under the plan.2 In the home mortgage context, in Rake v. Wade,3 the Supreme Court indicated that payments to cure arrearages on a long-term debt provided for under § 1322(b)(5) were subject to § 1325(a)(5) at least to the extent that a Chapter 13 debtor curing default under § 1322(b)(5) was required to pay postpetition interest on arrearages consistent with § 1325(a)(5).4 In 1994, Congress enacted § 1322(e)5 to overrule parts of Rake, raising the question whether a mortgage arrearage cured under § 1322(b)(5) is also an allowed secured claim provided for by the plan for purposes of § 1325(a)(5).


This issue has new significance in light of the equal monthly amount requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii). In In re Davis,6 the bankruptcy court concluded that § 1325(a)(5) was not implicated when a long-term mortgage is cured under § 1322(b)(5) and thus the equal payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) did not apply. The plan in Davis cured defaults on a claim secured by a manufactured home in unequal periodic payments of zero dollars for months 1 through 10 and $122.23 for months 11 through 57. The Davis court rejected an equal monthly installments argument based on the finding that the “[c]reditor’s claim falls outside the ambit of requirements contained under Section 1325(a)(5).”7


On only slightly different facts, several courts have disagreed with Davis and concluded that the equal monthly amount requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) applies to plans that cure mortgage defaults. For example, in In re Schultz,8 the plan proposed to maintain monthly payments on a long-term mortgage and pay the balance from refinancing at the end of 60 months. Citing § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I), the bankruptcy court found this proposal violated the equal monthly installments requirement. Because the mortgage holder did not object to confirmation, the bankruptcy court inferred acceptance and confirmed the plan under § 1325(a)(5)(A).9 Along the way the court said this about equal monthly installments when a Chapter 13 plan cured defaults under § 1322(b)(5):

This court is not persuaded that subsection 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) does not apply when only a portion of the allowed secured claim, i.e., current payments and the arrearage, are being paid pursuant to the plan. . . . Section 1322(b)(5) just means that the entire secured claim need not be paid in full under certain circumstances allowing cure of default, but the claim is still an allowed secured claim. This court holds that periodic payments must be equal, period. This applies when the default is cured and only current payments and the arrearage are being paid pursuant to the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5) and when a long-term or matured debt are paid in full under the plan.10

At present, a majority of reported decisions reads the equal monthly amount requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) to prohibit the use of balloon payments by sale or refinancing to manage the curing of mortgage arrearages when periodic payments are also contemplated by the plan. Not answered by these cases is the question whether a pure refinance or balloon payment plan—one that does not include periodic payments—would be subject to the equal monthly installments requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii). Such a plan would still have to satisfy the condition in § 1322(b)(5) that defaults be cured within a “reasonable time.”11 But both sections function without conflict when a plan cures arrearages with a single payment within a reasonable time after confirmation. It is only when the plan also provides for “periodic” payments that the equal monthly amount requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) becomes an obstacle to curing default with a balloon payment.


Does § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) prohibit paying the arrearage on an allowed secured claim more quickly than the rest of the claim? Imagine a home mortgage with a monthly payment of $500 that is three payments behind at confirmation. The plan proposes to cure default and maintain payments under § 1322(b)(5).12 Before BAPCPA, a common formula for paying the mortgage and the arrearage was something like a $600 payment for 15 months—until the $1,500 arrearage was paid in full—and then $500 per month for the remainder of the plan to maintain the regular monthly payment. The majority construction of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) in the § 1322(b)(5) context could prohibit this unequal monthly distribution scheme unless the mortgage holder accepts the plan.


For most claims secured by personal property, monthly payments are the norm in Chapter 13 cases. The issue then becomes the requirement that such payments be “equal.”


That periodic payments must be in equal monthly amounts probably means that the amount paid each month must be the same. The House Report supports this interpretation, stating that § 1325(a)(5)(B) was amended “to require that periodic payments pursuant to a chapter 13 plan with respect to a secured claim be made in equal monthly installments.”13 It has been held that the equal amount requirement is violated when a debtor defaults after confirmation and proposes to modify the plan to complete payment of an allowed secured claim without curing the postconfirmation default.14


New § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii) may reduce or end the practice in some jurisdictions of “staging” or “stairstepping” payments into Chapter 13 plans. By this convention, Chapter 13 debtors pay less into the plan during the early months after confirmation and the funding increases during subsequent years. Sometimes the result is that distributions to secured claim holders are not level, but start out lower and increase as payment into the plan increases. The new equal monthly amount rule in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) would not prohibit a debtor from increasing (or decreasing) payments into the plan with time so long as the distributions to secured claim holders remain equal. The mathematics of retiring secured claims in full may demand that the amount of money paid into the plan during the early years be greater than some debtors would prefer to level out distributions into equal monthly amounts.


The new equal monthly payment requirement will also prohibit the practice of providing “pro rata” distribution to secured claim holders from whatever funds are available each month after distributions to claims with higher priority. In a pro rata distribution scheme, the amount distributed to each secured claim holder may vary from month to month and would be equal only by happenstance. New § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) will require all Chapter 13 plans to specify exactly the amount of monthly payment to each allowed secured claim holder—unless the claim holder accepts other treatment.


The equal monthly amount requirement could make problems in districts that allow attorneys’ fees to be paid on a priority basis in the early months after confirmation. Unless the payment of attorneys’ fees (or other priority claims) is carefully accounted for in the mathematics of the plan, priority payments during the early months after confirmation can eat into the installments that are due to allowed secured claim holders. A plan that provides a fixed (equal) monthly payment to an allowed secured claim holder that is not sufficiently funded might fail the equal monthly amount requirement in new § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). One obvious solution is that payments into the plan must be sufficient to cover all of the monthly payments to allowed secured claim holders even in a month when the debtor’s attorney or other priority claim holders are also receiving distributions.15 This will not always be financially possible.


Another solution is emerging in the case law: Pay the attorney’s fee in full before equal monthly installments begin. To get there, several courts have reasoned that nothing in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) requires equal monthly installments to begin at any particular moment during the Chapter 13 case. In other words, when the plan proposes periodic payments to an allowed secured claim holder, § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) does not specify that equal monthly payments must begin immediately after the petition, immediately after confirmation or at any other particular time. As explained by the bankruptcy court in In re DeSardi:16

The equal payment provision does not state that its requirements must be met beginning in month one of the plan. Nor does the section state that payments must be equal “as of the effective date of the plan.” . . . The Court understands this clause to require payments to be equal once they begin, and to continue to be equal until they cease. . . .  DaimlerChrysler argued that upon the date of confirmation it should receive a lump sum payment equal to the difference between the adequate protection amount and the scheduled plan payments. This . . . would equalize the payments under the plan, fulfilling the equal payment provision. However, the argument fails if the Court applies this logic to adequate protection provided for under a plan. A lump sum payment would make all subsequent payments unequal to the lump sum payment. . . . Nuvell’s argument that plan payments must be equal throughout the life of the plan fails because a creditor cannot insist on continued payments once principal and interest are fully paid. . . . Nuvell’s interpretation means that every car lender must finance every car for the life of every plan. . . . [T]he equal payment provision terminates upon full payment. . . . [T]he equal payment provision requires that payments be level once they begin and terminate once the lender is fully paid. Exactly when these level payments begin is case-specific. . . .  There is only one period of payment, dating from the first scheduled payment on a secured claim to the date of full satisfaction. Throughout this period, insofar as periodic payments are to be made, “such payments shall be in equal monthly amounts.”17

If equal monthly payments need not begin immediately after the petition or at confirmation, then the plan can satisfy § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) when equal monthly installments to an allowed secured claim holder begin several months after confirmation. This creates a gap during which the plan can use the money that would have gone to the secured claim holder for the payment of attorneys’ fees. This is exactly what several courts have concluded: After confirmation and before equal monthly installments begin to an allowed secured claim holder, the debtor can pay attorneys’ fees through the Chapter 13 plan.18


Courts that permit payment of attorneys’ fees before commencement of equal monthly installments to an allowed secured claim holder impose an additional condition when adequate protection requirements are in play. Detailed elsewhere, § 1326(a)(1)(C) requires adequate protection of some allowed secured claim holders before confirmation19 and § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II) requires that payments to personal-property-secured creditors after confirmation must be sufficient to provide adequate protection during the period of the plan.20 These adequate protection imperatives collide with the equal monthly installment requirement because measuring adequate protection for a secured claim holder is a different calculation than determining the amount necessary to retire an allowed secured claim. Adequate protection typically mimics depreciation caused by the debtor’s use of the property or by the automatic stay.21 Paying an allowed secured claim consistent with § 1325(a)(5) involves amortization of debt over some period of months at a specified interest rate. The equal monthly installments required by § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) will not be the same in amount or duration as the amount necessary to provide adequate protection after confirmation under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II) except by coincidence.22 But § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II) compels that during the gap after confirmation and before commencement of equal monthly installments, most personal-property-secured claim holders are entitled to payments that at least provide adequate protection.


Putting these thoughts together, several courts have held that a Chapter 13 plan can delay commencement of equal monthly installments to an allowed secured claim holder for months after confirmation to permit payment of attorneys’ fees but that the allowed secured claim holder must receive payments that provide adequate protection while the creditor waits for equal monthly installments to begin.23 The result is an elegant accommodation of the adequate protection and equal monthly installment rights of secured claim holders and the practical need to pay administrative expenses in Chapter 13 cases. The alternative—that equal monthly installments must begin immediately after confirmation—would wreck the feasibility of a fair number of Chapter 13 plans and is an outcome not compelled by the language of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii).


There is a strained interpretation of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) that would require the periodic payments to all allowed secured claim holders to be in the same equal monthly amounts. This, of course, leads to the absurd result that a car lender and a home mortgage holder must be paid the same monthly payment through a confirmed Chapter 13 plan without regard to value or contract rights. The better reading of the new section would confine the equal monthly amount requirement to the payment of each individual allowed secured claim.


New § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) shows no respect for Chapter 13 debtors who have seasonal or irregular incomes. Many eligible Chapter 13 debtors fall in this category—teachers who have nine months of income at one level and three months of no or different income; construction workers or anyone in an outdoor or seasonal trade. It is common to allow Chapter 13 debtors with seasonal employment to make larger payments into the plan during the good months and not-so-large payments during the not-so-good months. Distributions to creditors are accordingly uneven but sufficient over time to produce a confirmable plan before BAPCPA. Absent acceptance from allowed secured claim holders, Chapter 13 debtors with seasonal income will have to propose equal monthly payments even in months when less income is available to pay the Chapter 13 trustee. For some debtors, this will translate into smaller monthly payments spread out over a longer period of time than would be the case if the debtors could propose larger distributions in some months and smaller distributions in others.


Section 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) will complicate the design of Chapter 13 plans that increase payments to allowed secured claim holders as other debts are paid off during the plan. For example, it is not uncommon for a Chapter 13 debtor to have a mortgage arrearage that will be cured in, say, 18 months. The money distributed to the mortgage holder becomes available to other creditors in the 19th month after confirmation. Most Chapter 13 debtors would prefer to distribute that money to other allowed secured claim holders to retire those liens. It is not obvious why any allowed secured claim holder would object to increasing its monthly payment as other secured claims are paid off during the plan, but § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) discourages Chapter 13 debtors from constructing that kind of plan.


The equal monthly payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) is a confirmation entitlement that can be waived by the failure of an allowed secured claim holder to object to confirmation. For example, in In re Tonioli,24 the debtor defaulted in postconfirmation payments to a car lender entitled to equal monthly payments under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). The debtor moved to modify the plan to “abate” the delinquency. The bankruptcy court first concluded that abating the delinquent postconfirmation payments would violate the equal payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). Had the lienholder objected to modification, the court would have denied the motion. Because the car lender was silent, acceptance of the modification was inferred and unequal payments permitted.25


It is perhaps desirable that new § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) will require greater specificity of the treatment of secured claims through Chapter 13 plans. It was a goal of the pre-BAPCPA Model Chapter 13 Plan26 that secured claim holders would always know exactly what monthly payment the plan proposed. The equal monthly amount requirement in new § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) will require Chapter 13 debtors’ attorneys to carefully calculate plans to ensure there is enough money in each month to make the specified monthly payments to allowed secured claim holders.


The law of unintended consequences takes over when equal monthly payments are not exactly what a lienholder wants from the Chapter 13 case or when a little flexibility would actually advantage the lienholder by increasing the amount or decreasing the time for payments through the plan. It can be anticipated that in most such situations the lienholder will consent to unequal treatment when unequal is better.


1  11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).


2  11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), discussed in § 78.4  Curing Default, Waiving Default, Maintaining Payments and Combinations and § 81.1  Overview: General Rules for Saving Debtor’s Home.


3  508 U.S. 464, 113 S. Ct. 2187, 124 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1993).


4  See § 134.1 [ In General: Rake and Contracts before October 22, 1994 ] § 83.1  In General: Rake and Contracts before October 22, 1994.


5  11 U.S.C. § 1322(e), discussed in § 135.1 [ Section 1322(e): Contracts after October 22, 1994 ] § 83.2  Section 1322(e): Contracts after October 22, 1994.


6  343 B.R. 326 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006).


7  343 B.R. at 328.


8  363 B.R. 902 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2007).


9  See discussion of acceptance by silence below in this section and in § 445.1 [ Acceptance of Plan ] § 74.4  Acceptance of Plan after BAPCPA.


10  363 B.R. at 906. Accord In re Lemieux, 347 B.R. 460, 463–64, 465 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2006) (Although second and third mortgages are “short term” and can be modified consistent with § 1322(c), installments that provide adequate protection for 35 months and a balloon payment in the 36th month by refinancing does not satisfy equal payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). “Because Davis-Mullen’s mortgages are payable in October 2006 within the term of the Debtors’ proposed plan, the Debtors may modify her secured claims if they satisfy the requirements of § 1325(a)(5)(B). . . . The Debtors propose to make regular monthly payments through their plan . . . . While that sum may be sufficient to provide adequate protection to Davis-Mullen under 11 U.S.C. § 361, the Debtors must make a balloon payment in the sum of $95,853 to satisfy Davis-Mullen’s secured claims in order to comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1322(c) and 1325(a)(5) because the notes mature in October 2006. The difficulty with the Debtors’ proposed treatment of Davis-Mullen’s secured claims is the requirement that payments be in equal monthly amounts because they are distributing property to Davis-Mullen in the form of periodic plan payments. The Debtors’ plan does not contain provisions for distributions in equal monthly amounts.” Although § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) may not require that payments be equal in every month of the plan, the debtors “have not tested” that issue in this case, rather “they have proposed a plan with unequal periodic payments that cannot be confirmed because of the plain language of the statute.”); In re Wagner, 342 B.R. 766, 772 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2006) (Equal monthly payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) does not permit a balloon payment in the 24th month after confirmation. Plan proposed monthly “maintenance installments” of $728 beginning after confirmation with respect to a lien that survived discharge in a prior Chapter 7 case, with balloon payment ($68,829.49) in 24th month. “[T]o obtain confirmation, the Debtor’s plan must provide for equal monthly payments . . . over the life of the plan until the lien claim is satisfied. Such treatment cannot then allow for a balloon payment in the final month.”).


11  See the “reasonable time” requirement in 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), discussed in § 133.1 [ Reasonable Time to Cure Defaults ] § 82.4  Reasonable Time to Cure Defaults.


12  See § 129.1 [ Overview: General Rules for Saving Debtor’s Home ] § 81.1  Overview: General Rules for Saving Debtor’s Home.


13  H.R. Rep. No. 109-31, at 85.


14  See In re Tonioli, 359 B.R. 814, 818 (Bankr. D. Utah 2007) (Postconfirmation modification to “abate” delinquent postconfirmation payments would violate equal payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). “The effect of the abatement will be that GMAC, a secured creditor receiving payments under the plan, will not receive equal monthly payments . . . as required by the Court’s confirmation order.”).


15  See § 442.1 [ Attorney Fees after BAPCPA ] § 73.9  Attorney Fees after BAPCPA for further discussion of the payment of attorneys’ fees through Chapter 13 plans after BAPCPA.


16  340 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006).


17  340 B.R. at 805–07. Accord In re Hill, No. 06-80502, 2007 WL 499622, at *6–*7 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2007) (“The language of the statute simply cannot be read to dictate any specific time for the equal monthly payments to begin. . . . [W]hen the collateral in question is personal property, equal monthly payments need not begin immediately after confirmation. Once they do begin, they must continue until the creditor is paid in full or the debtor receives a discharge at the end of the plan. . . . This Court agrees with [In re DeSardi, 340 B.R. 790 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006)].”); In re Blevins, No. 06-10978 A 13, 2006 WL 2724153, at *2 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) (“The phrase ‘equal monthly amounts’ in § 1325(a)(5)(B) does not require that the equal payments be made over the life of the plan. To interpret the Code in that way . . . would not allow for payments to cease once a creditor had been paid in full.”).


18  See, e.g., In re Hill, No. 06-80502, 2007 WL 499622, at *7 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2007) (Plan can pay attorney’s fees and other costs allowed under § 507(a)(2) before equal monthly payments begin to a car lender. “Since Chapter 13 plans must provide for payment of Section 507(a)(2) claims, which include debtors’ attorneys’ fees, either before or concurrently with other payments, even payments on secured claims, requiring the ‘equal monthly payments’ to begin at confirmation would result in many unconfirmable plans . . . an absurd result that Congress could not have intended.”); In re Blevins, No. 06-10978 A 13, 2006 WL 2724153 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) (Equal monthly amount requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) is satisfied by plan that begins equal monthly payments after attorney’s fees are paid in full.). See § 442.1 [ Attorney Fees after BAPCPA ] § 73.9  Attorney Fees after BAPCPA for further discussion of payment of attorney’s fees.


19  See 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(C), discussed in § 404.1 [ Adequate Protection before Confirmation ] § 47.2  Preconfirmation Adequate Protection after BAPCPA.


20  See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II), discussed in § 449.1 [ “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation ] § 74.15  “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation after BAPCPA.


21  See §§ 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1  Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation, 404.1 [ Adequate Protection before Confirmation ] § 47.2  Preconfirmation Adequate Protection after BAPCPA and 449.1 [ “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation ] § 74.15  “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation after BAPCPA.


22  See § 449.1 [ “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation ] § 74.15  “Adequate Protection” after Confirmation after BAPCPA. See, e.g., In re Hill, No. 06-80502, 2007 WL 499622, at *7 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2007) (“[T]he amount of the adequate protection payments [does] not need to be the same as the equal monthly payments.”).


23  See In re Hill, No. 06-80502, 2007 WL 499622, at *6–*7 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2007) (Equal monthly payments to car lender need not begin immediately after confirmation so long as car lender receives adequate protection; plan can pay attorney’s fees and other costs allowed under § 507(a)(2) after payment of adequate protection to car lender and before equal monthly payments begin. “When the collateral in question is ‘personal property,’ [§ 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I) and § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II)] must be read together; they require ‘equal monthly payments’ to be made monthly, in equal amounts, and at the minimum level to afford the secured creditor adequate protection. . . . [P]arsing Section 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(II) demonstrates that the phrase ‘during the period of the plan’ modifies ‘adequate protection,’ not ‘such payments.’ . . . The only requirement is that the equal monthly payments be in an amount sufficient to provide adequate protection. . . . [I]n most instances, the equal monthly payments will be greater than the adequate protection payments.”); In re DeSardi, 340 B.R. 790, 806–07 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2006) (“While equal payment does not need to start in month one of a plan, adequate protection does. . . . In other words, plan payments under § 1326(a)(1)(A) are likely to be different from adequate protection. . . . [A]dequate protection payments are not meant to be considered when fulfilling the requirements of the equal payment provision. . . . An adequate protection payment that occurs after the plan is confirmed cannot set the standard as to what the equal payments will be once they begin.”).


24  359 B.R. 814 (Bankr. D. Utah 2007).


25  See also In re Schultz, 363 B.R. 902 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2007) (Siding with In re Wagner, 342 B.R. 766 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2006), and rejecting In re Davis, 343 B.R. 326 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006), plan that maintains monthly payments on a long-term mortgage with balance paid from refinancing at end of 60 months fails equal payment requirement in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I); creditor that did not object is deemed to have accepted and plan can be confirmed under § 1325(a)(5)(A).).


26  See App. SSS and App. GG.