31, 2007), the bankruptcy court reasoned that be- cause § 523(d) was intended to curb abu-sive practices by institutional creditors, not an individual creditor in circumstances similar to the debtor, requiring the plain-tiff to assume responsibility for the debt- or’s attorney’s fees would be unjust. Id. at *2 (citing Thomas, 258 B.R. at 169); ac-cord Walter v. Walter (In re Walter), 50 B.R. 521, 523 (Bankr. D. Del. 1985) (ob-serving that “Congress ■ did not intend equally positioned private parties, absent an abusive filing, to bear the expense of the other’s cost of litigation.”) Courts also have found special circum-stances to exist when the plaintiffs com-plaint included counts under provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that do not authorize fee shifting. See King, 258 B.R. at 798 (<HOLDING>); Sweriby, 529 B.R. at 710-11 (declining to
holding that  1988 attorneys fees should not be awarded when the tax injunction act 28 usc  1341 bars the plaintiff from obtaining  1983 relief holding that attorney fees must be awarded where plaintiffs section 1983 claim was unreasonable and groundless holding that fees should not be awarded where plaintiff also argued a claim under  523a6 holding that fees may be awarded for litigating amount of fees only where language of statute supports such conclusion holding that when a state court judgment was found not to be dischargeable under 11 usc  523a6 the associated attorneys fees were also not dischargeable