its situs.” McRary v. McRary, 228 N.C. 714, 718, 47 S.E.2d 27, 30 (1948) (citations omitted). In the present case, the last sentence in Paragraph 19 of the parties’ agreement states: “This Agreement shall be considered an instrument of conveyance of one-half (1/2) interest in such property of the non-owning party hereunder.” (Emphasis added). The Kansas court incorporated the entire agreement, including Paragraph 19, into the parties’ divorce judgment. In doing so, that court directly attempted to determine title to real property located in North Carolina. Since the Kansas court was without jurisdiction over the subject matter, any judgment attempting to affect the title to that subject matter is void and unenforceable whether entered on the merits or by cons 6 S.E.2d 552, 553 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Courtney v. Courtney, 40 N.C. App. 291, 297,
holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it is void holding that any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property  is a nullity holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce