With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". McDonald, 88 Tex. 626, 630, 33 S.W. 325 (Tex.1895). A collateral attack on a judgment is an attempt to avoid its binding force in order to obtain specific relief that the judgment currently impedes. Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex.2005); Crawford, 88 Tex. at 630, 33 S.W. 325. Examples of a collateral attack include when a party seeking to dissolve a writ of garnishment assails the underlying judgment. See Stewart v. USA Custom Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 18, 19-20 (Tex.1994). A voidable judgment is subject to direct attack only; it cannot be collaterally attacked. See Rivera, 379 S.W.3d at 271 (“A litigant may attack a void judg ment directly or collaterally, but a voidable judgment may only be attacked directly.”); see also Burlington State Bank, 207 S.W. at 956 (<HOLDING>). It is well established that a voidable

A: holding that dormant judgment is voidable and therefore not subject to collateral attack
B: holding that a judgment establishing a partys exclusive light to use a trade name was not subject to collateral attack
C: recognizing collateral attack on void order
D: recognizing bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over such a collateral attack
A.