entered October 19, 2009, and did not find this event to be a breach of the covenant. 8 . The May Agreement provides, "the prevailing party [in litigation] shall be entitled to recover ... reimbursement for reasonable attorney’s fees.” Similarly, the July Agreement states, “the party or parties prevailing in [ ] litigation will be entitled ... to their reasonable attorneys’ fees ... which will be determined by the court.” 9 . Murphy Farrell also argues that the trial court properly denied Sourant’s request for fees because he failed to sufficiently make the request in his pleadings. We disagree. Sourant’s answer set forth a prayer for fees pursuant to the terms of the Agreements. Cf. Robert E. Mann Const. Co. v. Liebert Corp., 204 Ariz. 129, 133, ¶ 12, 60 P.3d 708, 712 (App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, both parties listed as a
holding defendant waived request for fees pursuant to contract provision by only generally referring to fees in the answer and not citing the contract holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a  523a case holding broker not a party to a purchase contract and therefore not liable for attorneys fees even though provision providing for payment of the brokers commission was contained in the contract holding party not entitled to recover attorneys fees without also recoveringdamages for breach of contract in part because attorney fees are in the nature of costs not damages