of the parties. See id. at 719, 47 S.E.2d at 31. Thus, we are not compelled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce this conveyance. Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that even if this Court determines that the Kansas divorce judgment did attempt to determine the title to North Carolina real property, the remainder of the judgment should be enforced. Essentially, plaintiff contends that the last sentence in Paragraph 19 could be “severed” to allow sale of the property and an equitable division of the proceeds as per the previous sentences in the paragraph. Plaintiff supports his argument by citing case law which tends to suggest that only those parts of a foreign judgment that attempt to determine ultimate title to North Carolina property are void. See id. at 720, 47 S.E.2d at 32 (<HOLDING>); Kirstein v. Kirstein, 64 N.C. App. 191, 193,
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 holding to the extent that the foreign decree attempts to affect title to property in north carolina it 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 any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void 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