U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1638, 104 L.Ed.2d 154 (1989). But the weight of authority supports the view that an award of attorney’s fees does constitute affirmative relief. Courts outside Washington State that have considered the question have concluded not only that a request for attorney’s fees should be viewed as a request for affirmative relief, but also that a request for attorney’s fees waives an objection to in personam jurisdiction. Associate Discount Corp. v. Haviland, 218 So.2d 59, 61-62 (La.Ct.App.1969) (“By asking for attorney’s fees, the defendant did affirmatively invoke the jurisdiction of the court, and therefore ... made a general appearance, and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court....”); Forbess v. George Morgan Pontiac Co., 135 So.2d 594, 598 (La.Ct.App.1961) (<HOLDING>); In re Marriage of Adler, 271 Ill.App.3d 469,
holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court holding that request for attorneys fees and damages to attached property in a motion to dissolve a writ of attachment  said to be totally unnecessary to the inquiry of the jurisdiction  constituted a submission by defendant to the exercise of jurisdiction over it personally by the court holding that in order to recover damages including attorneys fees for the damages consequent upon the improper suing out of the writ of attachment the proceedings must be begun  as a proceeding to dissolve the attachment and not as a trial of the case on the merits holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to perfect and enforce an attorneys charging lien where the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine entitlement and amount of attorneys fees holding that since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis