the entire principal.” See Note, id. (emphasis added). These definitions establish that a final, balloon payment is distinct and separate from the preceding “periodic payments.” Accordingly, it is only the periodic payments — and not the balloon payment— that are subject to the “equal monthly amounts” directive of § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I). In reaching a contrary conclusion, courts seem to make one of two errors. First, some courts overlook the “if’ in § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I), assuming that all secured claims must be paid by periodic payments; however, this interpretation renders the “if’ superfluous, and goes against legislative history and the more careful analysis rendered by other courts. See, e.g., United States v. McClure (In re McClure), No. (M.D.Ga. Sept. 30, 2011), ECF 10 (<HOLDING>). Second, many courts, such as Hamilton and its
holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts holding that the lower court failed to account for payments made in connection with the marital home including mortgage payments holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments holding social security disability payments and military disability payments are separate property after dissolution of marriage recognizing that payments to secured creditors are only required in equal monthly amounts if property to be distributed  is in the form of periodic payments