Pre-nuptual

[OZONE]

I suppose the truth is, the men of wealth are not the ones arguing with you!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For sure...they don't need my advice as they already know how it works. I guess I just went on and on to hear myself talk...the bane of lawyers.

But, maybe someone who has more than a little extra cash back home might think twice about what to do before tying the knot. Silly hope on my part?

We lawyers are too cautious in many ways....perhaps we miss out on the fun that our less cautious brothers experience. That ###### law school education!

OK...where is the Nana marriage forum? Can I marry more than one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now thats better. Nothing like losening up your trowsers and jump in head first

[cobra]

A pre-nup is a good idea regardless of nationality,

But be advised there's no guarantee it will hold up in court no matter how iron-clad some lawyer says it is, (signed under duress, stress, etc).

Generally it only protects assets acquired before the marriage, not during,

and it wouldn't instill much confidence in the proposed marriage with the would-be wife.

[malcolminthemiddle]

I suppose the truth is, the men of wealth are not the ones arguing with you!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong again, as usual.

For sure...they don't need my advice as they already know how it works. I guess I just went on and on to hear myself talk...the bane of lawyers.

........................................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Corkscrew, you have missed the salient point(s) under debate, all your advice (opion) has been offered on the basis of some one in the same position as you; namely an American with assets in the US, married in the US to a Thai woman, you have failed to consider other circumstances including those of the OP who was requesting advice on a marriage registered in Thailand.

Nonetheless, if I was to divorce from my Thai wife it would be very difficult if not impossible for her to make claim against my UK assets accrued prior to our marriage since our marriage is registered only in Thailand and we have never lived or intend to live in the UK.

For Thai assets she would be entitled only to 50% of those assets accrued after our marriage, not the assets accrued before.

So what would have been the benefit of a pre-nup for either of us or any one else in the same position?

A Will is a different issue.

Edit: Changed some formatting

Edited November 16, 2005 by malcolminthemiddle

[The Dude]

The Dude doesn't believe in Pre Nups. Hey wait a minute, The Dude doesn't believe in marriage, especially not in Thailand. The Dude likes to keep a tight grip on his assets and he don't take no chances. Dig that with a Caterpiller sized shovel.

[jackr]

Sorry you all,  I completely disagree with pre-nup.  If you truly cares for the others, Money or items shouldn't be an issue. Even if you are trying to protect yourself.  If money and things matters that much to you than you shouldn't get married. As far a i'm concern, its all about caring and wanting to take care of the other person, even for a short period of time.  Thats what life is to me.

Yawn. Love is blind?

Good advice from Neeranam and the Dude. Keep the money out of Muang Thai

[corkscrew]

I suppose the truth is, the men of wealth are not the ones arguing with you!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong again, as usual.

For sure...they don't need my advice as they already know how it works. I guess I just went on and on to hear myself talk...the bane of lawyers.

........................................

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Corkscrew, you have missed the salient point(s) under debate, all your advice (opion) has been offered on the basis of some one in the same position as you; namely an American with assets in the US, married in the US to a Thai woman, you have failed to consider other circumstances including those of the OP who was requesting advice on a marriage registered in Thailand.

Nonetheless, if I was to divorce from my Thai wife it would be very difficult if not impossible for her to make claim against my UK assets accrued prior to our marriage since our marriage is registered only in Thailand and we have never lived or intend to live in the UK.

For Thai assets she would be entitled only to 50% of those assets accrued after our marriage, not the assets accrued before.

So what would have been the benefit of a pre-nup for either of us or any one else in the same position?

A Will is a different issue.

Edit: Changed some formatting

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

His original request for information was:

"I'm preparing to marry a Thai woman in TL and would like some feedback about whether a pre-nup is a good idea.

I'm very happy with the girl who I've know for a while now and know she's a woman of good character however I had a rough divorce with a woman in the US where I had to part with half of my assets.

I'm just wondering if I'm fairly well protected by having the marriage in TL."

My response assumed that he was an American with assets in the US and he was not yet married to a Thai woman. And I did not know whether he was planning to get a Green Card for his wife or if they planned to live part of the time in both countries. I was not offering an opinion on what would happen if he was a UK citizen...obviously one glove does not fit all.

[Dragonman]

It is best to get married in your home country.

Why? It's certainly more expensive!

Also if it is the woman who is pressuring you to get married in your home country -run for your life, don't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to ask the same. Why? What are the benefits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the prime asset holder it is best to have the marriage and the pre-nup in his own country....presumably where most of his assets are. You want your own law to apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely it's more important where the divorce takes place, not the marriage. If she divorced you in Thailand it would be under thai law, if in the US, under American law. There are thai women's groups in the States advising women not to return to Thailand but to file in the US, particularly where there are children involved. These are people married in Thailand. If your assets were derived before marriage there should be no concern, if you hide assets obtained after marriage she could still file a claim in a US Civil action.

[corkscrew]

It is best to get married in your home country.

Why? It's certainly more expensive!

Also if it is the woman who is pressuring you to get married in your home country -run for your life, don't do it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was going to ask the same. Why? What are the benefits?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the prime asset holder it is best to have the marriage and the pre-nup in his own country....presumably where most of his assets are. You want your own law to apply.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely it's more important where the divorce takes place, not the marriage. If she divorced you in Thailand it would be under thai law, if in the US, under American law. There are thai women's groups in the States advising women not to return to Thailand but to file in the US, particularly where there are children involved. These are people married in Thailand. If your assets were derived before marriage there should be no concern, if you hide assets obtained after marriage she could still file a claim in a US Civil action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely...women's groups would strongly suggest that the Thai wife file in the States rather than in Thailand...thus the need for a prenup recognized in the US. This protects the man in the worst case scenario: when he has large assets in the US and the wife chooses to sue him right where those assets are.

[Gary A]

Obviously there are many opinions. My rules for myself are NEVER to be worth more dead than alive and to bring funds into Thailand as they are needed. My wife takes GOOD care of her walking ATM!

I do feel responsible to provide for her after I am gone. I bought her 10 rai of farm ground. She has her own house on two rai and the rent from my condo will keep her going as long as she lives. My kids in the USA are named beneficiaries of my 401K funds although if all goes according to plan there won't be much left! I made it and I'm going to try to spend it.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

i would say absolutely yes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ditto that with a glace cherry and a cocktail sparkler.

[The Coder]

Do you REALLY need a government to sanctify your union together? I mean shouldn't your love be able to survive and flourish without signing a flimsy piece of paper at the court house? If you both wish to commit to being together for the rest of your lives happily ever after, then great. But you shouldn't need to involve the government to achieve that. If you want your church, temple, relatives, and friends to sanctify and celebrate the occasion, then great. But why sign a legal marriage certificate? Marriage should be none of the governments business in the first place so leave them and all that legally binding rubbish they dreamed up out of your life.

Someone mentioned a prenup can have damaging emotional consequences on your spouse. I can't think of anything more damaging than forcing her to sign a legal marriage certificate to be with you and then forcing her name to be the same as yours. Loving each other should be enough. You shouldn't need to tie her up legally like that to show your love and dedication. Think for yourself.

[malcolminthemiddle]

Travelling, kids, building a future, bad times, death, just a few of the reasons I can think of for legalising the union.

Anyone think of others?

[OxfordWill]

Wrong again, as usual.

Do try reading the original post. Your comment is evidently the result of you considering yourself a 'man of wealth' and also in the 'pre-nup no no' brigade. Yet, you've simultaneously admitted to not even having your marriage registered in the UK and in other threads of having an asset-building mindset.

Ignoring the very real possibility that in the next few decades international and Thai laws regarding divorce and marriage may change (or come into fruition) you are still irrelevant to the question and my subsequent comment as you have no assets to protect from your potential divorce as you are not married in the country where your assets (or the majority of them) exist.

I think your main issue here is the emotional one regarding bringing the subject up with your partner and if such matters of trust are real issues for your relationship then marriage is hardly the logical next step. Everyone knows that otherwise good women/men have been 'led' into ripping their ex-husbands/wifes assets away by a greedy lawyer. Sometimes they don't even realise until years later what sort of financial burden they have caused and would never have wanted to do so in the first place. Rare, but it does happen.

Visa access is another good reason for legalising the union in your own country. Think grandchildren, too.

Additionally - I cannot believe someone would have the gall to imply a pre-nup husband of being selfish or untrusting yet simultaneously explicit that one should HIDE ones assets in another country and REFUSE legal recognition of your relationship in said country even though the husband will likely be travelling there and have family etc etc. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Edited November 16, 2005 by OxfordWill

[malcolminthemiddle]

Wrong again, as usual.

Do try reading the original post. Your comment is evidently the result of you considering yourself a 'man of wealth' and also in the 'pre-nup no no' brigade. Yet, you've simultaneously admitted to not even having your marriage registered in the UK and in other threads of having an asset-building mindset.

Ignoring the very real possibility that in the next few decades international and Thai laws regarding divorce and marriage may change (or come into fruition) you are still irrelevant to the question and my subsequent comment as you have no assets to protect from your potential divorce as you are not married in the country where your assets (or the majority of them) exist.

I think your main issue here is the emotional one regarding bringing the subject up with your partner and if such matters of trust are real issues for your relationship then marriage is hardly the logical next step. Everyone knows that otherwise good women/men have been 'led' into ripping their ex-husbands/wifes assets away by a greedy lawyer. Sometimes they don't even realise until years later what sort of financial burden they have caused and would never have wanted to do so in the first place. Rare, but it does happen.

Visa access is another good reason for legalising the union in your own country. Think grandchildren, too.

Additionally - I cannot believe someone would have the gall to imply a pre-nup husband of being selfish or untrusting yet simultaneously explicit that one should HIDE ones assets in another country and REFUSE legal recognition of your relationship in said country even though the husband will likely be travelling there and have family etc etc. The hypocrisy is astounding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong again, as usual.

PS

Are you married? If not what valid contribution to this pre-nup thread can you offer?

[OxfordWill]

Yes mate, I'm married to logic and my mia noi is the ability to smell bullsh1t.

[OZONE]

Sorry you all,  I completely disagree with pre-nup.  If you truly cares for the others, Money or items shouldn't be an issue. Even if you are trying to protect yourself.  If money and things matters that much to you than you shouldn't get married. As far a i'm concern, its all about caring and wanting to take care of the other person, even for a short period of time.  Thats what life is to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yawn. Love is blind?

Good advice from Neeranam and the Dude. Keep the money out of Muang Thai

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yup you're right, I been blind for the last 14 years, and still going strong. darn shame isn't it

[The Dude]

Do you REALLY need a government to sanctify your union together? I mean shouldn't your love be able to survive and flourish without signing a flimsy piece of paper at the court house? If you both wish to commit to being together for the rest of your lives happily ever after, then great. But you shouldn't need to involve the government to achieve that. If you want your church, temple, relatives, and friends to sanctify and celebrate the occasion, then great. But why sign a legal marriage certificate? Marriage should be none of the governments business in the first place so leave them and all that legally binding rubbish they dreamed up out of your life.

Someone mentioned a prenup can have damaging emotional consequences on your spouse. I can't think of anything more damaging than forcing her to sign a legal marriage certificate to be with you and then forcing her name to be the same as yours. Loving each other should be enough. You shouldn't need to tie her up legally like that to show your love and dedication. Think for yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Dude could not possibly agree with The Coder more on this issue. Good job there Coder dude. I just don't understand what the fascination is with entering into these legally binding agreements. The Dude is befuddled.

[Dragonman]

Wrong again, as usual.

Yet, you've simultaneously admitted to not even having your marriage registered in the UK and in other threads of having an asset-building mindset.

Ignoring the very real possibility that in the next few decades international and Thai laws regarding divorce and marriage may change (or come into fruition) you are still irrelevant to the question and my subsequent comment as you have no assets to protect from your potential divorce as you are not married in the country where your assets (or the majority of them) exist.

Visa access is another good reason for legalising the union in your own country. Think grandchildren, too.

Additionally - I cannot believe someone would have the gall to imply a pre-nup husband of being selfish or untrusting yet simultaneously explicit that one should HIDE ones assets in another country and REFUSE legal recognition of your relationship in said country even though the husband will likely be travelling there and have family etc etc. The hypocrisy is astounding.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thailand already has reciprocal agreements regarding marriage with most western countries including US & UK. Meaning you don't need to get registered in your home country to have a legal marriage there. Divorce is slightly different in that you get divorced in the country you are classed as resident in. Normally 1 year in that country is enough. However as there are no reciprocal legal agreements on Court jurisdiction, to get hold of assets in your home country she would have to bring a Civil action in that country.

With regards to reasons for getting married, if I were not legally married my wife and kids would not get any of my Company pension on my demise. This could be a large amount, say $500,000, due to our age difference and the fact that I don't feel too well at the moment. Or perhaps that's due to the Loy Krathong celebrations last night.

[nyinma]

As the OP I'm impressed with the range of opinions expressed here. There have been some very thoughtful answers and others that one might say are entertaining. I am earnestly trying to find the right path with this.

Perhaps I can sharpen the question a little. If the man has significant previous assets in the US and has a Thai marriage AND has a carefully prepared prenup (prepared in TL) will that protect previous assets in a divorce regardless of where the divorce is held?

[Dragonman]

As the OP I'm impressed with the range of opinions expressed here. There have been some very thoughtful answers and others that one might say are entertaining. I am earnestly trying to find the right path with this.

Perhaps I can sharpen the question a little. If the man has significant previous assets in the US and has a Thai marriage AND has a carefully prepared prenup (prepared in TL) will that protect previous assets in a divorce regardless of where the divorce is held?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok if you get an International (American) Law Firm who have offices here and in the States. Check the web for list of such,or American Embassy can supply. I presume you only mean divorce in Thailand or the States, as different countries do not recognise, or only partially recognise pre nups.

[socalbro]

Pre-nup or not, think long and hard about what it is about her you fell in love with and chances are those qualities are unique to Thai women.

Now ask yourself do you really want to change her by taking her to live in the states? Because I guarantee you it will. Some changes may be positive and others not, but rest assured a move to the states will change her in many ways which you'll have absolutly no control over.

That was my experience and I'm not alone. In my case things went from having a happy married life in Bangkok to a first-hand introduction to living hel_l in LA.

She found what she was looking for there and I found it here.

Don't mean to sound negative but I may still be with her today had we decided to stay here in BKK. Or maybe not.

But before you uproot your new wife to live in the states, believe me when I say they will westernize faster than you can imagine and in my case it just didn't work out.

I'm having more fun now anyways!!!

Best of Luck!

[lomatopo]

From today's (18 Nov. 2005) Bangkok Post, Business section, pg.B3

http://www.bangkokpost.com/Business/18Nov2005_biz47.php

CORPORATE COUNSELLOR

Strategies for premarital agreements

TILLEKE & GIBBINS

As our business relationships take us across international borders, our personal relationships follow suit. Cross-border marriages are becoming more common in Thailand. Foreign citizens marry Thai citizens and either reside in Thailand or relocate with their spouses back to their country of origin. Alternatively, foreign citizens marry elsewhere and then expatriate to Thailand.

In Thailand, a man and a woman are not legally married unless their marriage is registered with the appropriate government office. However, there is an exception for couples married abroad. If your marriage conforms to the rules of the country where it takes place, Thailand will recognise it. Recognition of foreign marriages is generally universal.

However, issues arise when the laws of different countries conflict. In Canada, same-sex marriages are recognised as legal. But other nations including the United States and Thailand are unlikely to recognise these legally performed marriages from Canada.

Conflicts of law are a prominent issue when planning for international premarital agreements. As a result, the planning involved is not dissimilar to the planning of any international agreement: the first question is where the agreement will need to be enforced.

Just because two people marry in Thailand does not mean that the agreement should be drafted to meet the requirements of Thai law. Since a premarital agreement is not enforced until the parties divorce, it should be prepared to comply with the law of the nation where divorce proceedings will likely take place. Often, this will be the country where the parties maintain their principal assets. Divorce proceedings must normally be brought in the country where the parties reside. This is the law in nearly all nations and cannot be varied by agreement of the parties.

A foreigner taking a Thai spouse to reside outside of Thailand should therefore arrange a premarital agreement to meet the legal requirements of the couple's intended foreign residence. This requires preparation by foreign counsel. In many cases, the Thai spouse must also be afforded independent legal representation in order to make the agreement binding in the foreign jurisdiction. Optimally, the Thai spouse should be simultaneously provided with both Thai and foreign counsel familiar with the laws of the foreign residence before signing. This is to ensure against any future objections that the Thai spouse was not afforded adequate legal counsel, which can render the premarital agreement void in certain jurisdictions such as Canada and the United States.

When foreign couples married abroad expatriate to Thailand, they often do not realise that by abandoning their residence abroad they also abandon their right to bring a divorce proceeding there. Having established residence in Thailand, even a foreign couple married abroad can initiate an action for divorce here. This can create confusion when premarital agreements drawn up in a foreign country are sought to be enforced in Thailand.

Normally, Thai law will only recognise premarital agreements if they are registered at the time of marriage with the appropriate government office. Furthermore, under Thai law, premarital agreements executed in Thailand cannot provide for foreign law to apply. Choice of law provisions that are commonly enforced by Thai courts in business contracts are expressly forbidden in Thai premarital agreements.

However, Thailand's Conflict of Laws Act expressly provides that for agreements executed outside Thailand, Thai courts shall determine validity according to the law of the nation where the agreement is executed. Premarital agreements validly entered into in a foreign nation will be treated as valid in Thailand.

While overall validity is determined according to the country of execution, Thailand's Conflict of Laws Act makes a distinction when addressing the substantive law to be applied in enforcing the terms contained within the agreement. More precisely, for premarital agreements executed abroad, the agreement terms must follow the law of the married couple's nationality provided they are both of the same nationality. If not, then the agreement shall be governed by the law "to which the parties intended or may be presumed to have intended to submit themselves". As a final alternative, Thai courts will apply the law of the couple's first matrimonial domicile.

However, even here exceptions will apply. Where real estate is concerned, the law of the country where the immovable property is located applies.

An improperly crafted premarital agreement can result in significant cost - both emotional and financial. When further complicated by international law, the assistance of experienced counsel is strongly recommended.

Written by John Fotiadis, consultant, and Pimvimol Vipamaneerut, partner, Commercial Department, Tilleke & Gibbins International Ltd. Please send comments to Marilyn Tinnakul at [email protected]

"A man doesn't know what happiness is until he's married. By then it's too late." (Frank Sinatra in The Joker is Wild, 1957, four wives total including Ava Gardner and Mia Farrow.)

Edited November 18, 2005 by lomatopo

[The Dude]

Pre-nup or not, think long and hard about what it is about her you fell in love with and chances are those qualities are unique to Thai women.

Now ask yourself do you really want to change her by taking her to live in the states?  Because I guarantee you it will.  Some changes may be positive and others not, but rest assured a move to the states will change her in many ways which you'll have absolutly no control over.

That was my experience and I'm not alone.  In my case things went from having a happy married life in Bangkok to a first-hand introduction to living hel_l in LA. 

She found what she was looking for there and I found it here.

Don't mean to sound negative but I may still be with her today had we decided to stay here in BKK.  Or maybe not. 

But before you uproot your new wife to live in the states, believe me when I say they will westernize faster than you can imagine and in my case it just didn't work out.

I'm having more fun now anyways!!! 

Best of Luck!

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Dude hears you, Socalbro, when it comes to this matter. The Dude would never ever bring his hot chick to live in the USA. Could you imagine it? Ever surfer dude from La Jolla to Malibu would be literally chomping at the bit to date her. She would eat that up and go into a frenzy much like expats do here for the chicks. What a nitemare scenario! Thanks for your post on an important issue, socalbrodudester. I can dig with a shovel, my man

[OZONE]

Pre-nup or not, think long and hard about what it is about her you fell in love with and chances are those qualities are unique to Thai women.

Now ask yourself do you really want to change her by taking her to live in the states?  Because I guarantee you it will.  Some changes may be positive and others not, but rest assured a move to the states will change her in many ways which you'll have absolutly no control over.

That was my experience and I'm not alone.  In my case things went from having a happy married life in Bangkok to a first-hand introduction to living hel_l in LA. 

She found what she was looking for there and I found it here.

Don't mean to sound negative but I may still be with her today had we decided to stay here in BKK.  Or maybe not. 

But before you uproot your new wife to live in the states, believe me when I say they will westernize faster than you can imagine and in my case it just didn't work out.

I'm having more fun now anyways!!! 

Best of Luck!

     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Dude hears you, Socalbro, when it comes to this matter. The Dude would never ever bring his hot chick to live in the USA. Could you imagine it? Ever surfer dude from La Jolla to Malibu would be literally chomping at the bit to date her. She would eat that up and go into a frenzy much like expats do here for the chicks. What a nitemare scenario! Thanks for your post on an important issue, socalbrodudester. I can dig with a shovel, my man

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hel_l, sometime I don't think you made sense at all, but for some reason, I completely understood exactly what you just post .

[expatinasia]

"chomping at the bit "

Six years of high school, and that's the best you can do?

The phrase is "CHAMPING at the bit".

[The Dude]

"chomping at the bit "

Six years of high school, and that's the best you can do?

The phrase is "CHAMPING at the bit".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL, whatever dude

Oh yeah, See your post below. Did you really think that was how to spell apparently? roflmao

expatinasia Posted on: 2005-10-19 06:52:19

Senior Member

Group: Members

Posts: 235

Joined: 2003-12-12

Member No.: 6,211

I applaud the PM's decision to do something. Most of you disagree with everything the PM does, or think. You're a guest and, unlike most of the Thais, you can leave whenever you feel like it. Apparantly a large portion of the TV crowd utilizes the pornographic sites for pleasure, precisely the type of person the PM is addressing.

Edited November 18, 2005 by The Dude

[newns.m]

Greetings,

New to the forum.

I'm preparing to marry a Thai woman in TL and would like some feedback about whether a pre-nup is a good idea.

I'm very happy with the girl who I've know for a while now and know she's a woman of good character however I had a rough divorce with a woman in the US where I had to part with half of my assets.

I'm just wondering if I'm fairly well protected by having the marriage in TL.

Your thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sorry but can't be arsed reading all the posts,but my question is Why marry again after a failed one?

Thailand is full of men who have married multiple times and every single one of them seem to think it will work this time round!With a different culture,age gap etc,etc,most are deluding themselves,and surely are suffering from sun stroke or dementia.

forget about marriage and just enjoy yourself.

Martin

[Dragonman]

"chomping at the bit "

Six years of high school, and that's the best you can do?

The phrase is "CHAMPING at the bit".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't like to enter a private dispute , but my old English Prof. seemed to know the Cambridge Dictionary of American English inside out, and said chafing/ chomping/ champing were all correct. Whatever

[corkscrew]

"chomping at the bit "

Six years of high school, and that's the best you can do?

The phrase is "CHAMPING at the bit".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't like to enter a private dispute , but my old English Prof. seemed to know the Cambridge Dictionary of American English inside out, and said chafing/ chomping/ champing were all correct. Whatever

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Posted by bob on May 26, 2000

In Reply to: Re: Champing/chomping at the bit posted by ESC on May 25, 2000

: : A co-worker and myself were discussing the phrase "chomping at the bit"

: : He insists that the phrase is actually "champing at the bit" but has been changed

: : over time.

: : Can you please settle this debate ... If you could provide the origin and meaning behing

: : the saying that would be great!!!

: : Thanks

: I haven't found it yet. But it has got to be "chomping at the bit" as in a horse chomping or biting at its bit, ready to be on its way.

In the 14th century it was "champing." The pronounciation has changed to chomping, but the sense is the same. I tend to use "champing" but I'm a 14th century kind of guy, so I think you could use either without raising eyebrows.

[Patsycat]

I'm sure it's "champing" chomping is eating whereas champing is well champing!!!