the parties or property, (2) no jurisdiction of the subject matter, (3) no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or (4) no capacity to act as a court. See Browning, 698 S.W.2d at 363. It is true, then, that a judgment rendered without jurisdictional power is a type of void judgment that may be subject to a collateral attack. See id. Thus, a judgment rendered by a court without jurisdictional power can be set aside both on collateral attack as a void judgment, see id., and on direct attack without complying with the bill-of-review requirements, see McEwen, 345 S.W.2d at 709-10. However, the fact that a judgment is “void” tells us nothing about whether it was rendered by a court with or without jurisdictional power as contemplated by McEwen. See T. Brown Constructors, 947 S.W.2d at 658-59 (<HOLDING>). SOS Alliance argues that an objection under
holding appealable district courts order dismissing for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction due to determination of exclusive tribal court jurisdiction holding that voidness of summary judgment in defamation case could be asserted for first time on appeal only if trial court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to render judgment and concluding court had jurisdiction holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment recognizing that only void judgments are subject to collateral attack and that a judgment is void only when court had no jurisdiction of the parties or property no jurisdiction of the subject matter no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act holding that district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction and yet that judgment void for lack of jurisdiction to render the particular judgment