attack, USA Custom must show that the nihil dicit judgment is void. Kelly v. Gibbs, 84 Tex. 143, 19 S.W. 563, 563 (1892) (stating that a garnishment proceeding may be defeated by a showing that the judgment relied on by the plaintiff does not, in fact, exist, or that it is void); Tom Benson Chevrolet Co. v. Beall, 567 S.W.2d 857, 859 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting that, in a writ of garnishment proceeding, the attack on the underlying judgment must show that it is nonexistent or void); see Fleming v. Seeligson, 57 Tex. 524, 531 (1882) (stating that the only issue in a collateral attack is whether the underlying judgment is void); Owen Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Brite Day Constr., Inc., 821 S.W.2d 283, 287 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). In a collateral attack, the judgment under
holding that failure to follow specific amendment procedures rendered attempted amendment of bylaws null and void holding that a garnishment proceeding could not proceed because the underlying judgment was null and void holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixedmotive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under the more taxing mcdonnell douglas standard holding that proceedings  involving a layperson representing a corporation are null and void ah initio recognizing that orders entered after the passage of the fiveyear deadline requiring automatic dismissal are null and void for lack of jurisdiction