With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of a court of another state.” Courtney v. Courtney, 40 N.C. App. 291, 295, 253 S.E.2d 2, 4 (1979) (citations omitted). However, “[i]t is accepted law in North Carolina that courts of one state cannot determine title to real property located in another state.” Kirstein v. Kirstein, 64 N.C. App. 191, 192, 306 S.E.2d 552, 553 (1983) (citations omitted). When the court rendering judgment has no jurisdiction over the property, the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not applicable. Id. at 193, 306 S.E.2d at 553. Thus, “[a] judgment seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to property outside the jurisdiction of the court rendering it may be given extra-state effect for many purposes, but it does not establish any right in the property itself, enforceable in the state 3 S.E.2d 2, 5 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Although not specifically addressed

A: 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
B: holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property  is a nullity
C: 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
D: holding that any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void
D.