request attorney’s fees in the initial response to the plaintiffs complaint. The court in Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Sidore (In re Sidore), 41 B.R. 206, 209 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.1984), did not re quire the debtor to specifically request attorney’s fees at the outset in a § 523(a) case, reasoning that “[s]ince § 523(d) clearly states that the debtor is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, the creditor is on notice that loss of his claim could result in his being assessed those fees and costs.” See also, First Nat’l Bank v. Bernhardy (In re Bernhardy), 103 B.R. 198, 199 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1989); Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Smith (In re Smith), 54 B.R. 299, 303 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa 1985). Compare Montgomery Ward and Co. v. Blackburn (In re Blackburn), 68 B.R. 870, 881 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1987) (<HOLDING>). It is usually obvious whether a debt is a
holding that in absence of prayer for attorneys fees trial court should have excluded a purported agreement to pay attorneys fees because there is ample opportunity for the party seeking affirmative relief to plead his case  in the body of the complaint holding that oncors request for the trial judge rather than the jury to determine the reasonableness of its attorneys fees and the failure to submit the question of attorneys fees to the jury resulted in a waiver of oncors claim for the recovery of attorneys fees holding that the debtor must request attorneys fees in the answer to a complaint in a  523a case 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 trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees