American Express Centurion Bank v. Corum, 2017 ND 261

American Express Centurion Bank brought two collection actions against Karen Corum for unpaid credit card accounts and moved for summary judgment in both cases.
Corum opposed the motions, filed motions to dismiss, and requested at the district-court hearing that her husband (a non‑party, non‑lawyer) be allowed to speak on her behalf; the court denied that request.
The district court granted summary judgment for American Express in both matters; Corum appealed both judgments.
On appeal Corum argued the court deprived her of the right to counsel by refusing to let her husband act as her “spokesman,” prevented her from pointing out inconsistencies in plaintiff’s affidavit, and violated her husband’s free‑speech rights.
The Supreme Court of North Dakota concluded the summary judgments were supported by the record and that a non‑lawyer spouse may not represent a party in court under N.D.C.C. § 27‑11‑01, affirming the judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgments were proper	American Express: summary judgment supported by record and law	Corum: factual inconsistencies in plaintiff's affidavits were not challenged because she couldn’t speak through husband	Summary judgments affirmed; record supports judgments and appeal summarily affirmed under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6)
Whether a non‑lawyer spouse may speak for a party in court	Court/plaintiff: proceedings properly conducted; only licensed attorneys may represent others	Corum: husband should have been allowed to act as her spokesman and point out affidavit inconsistencies	Court held N.D.C.C. § 27‑11‑01 bars non‑lawyers from representing others; denial was proper
Whether denying husband’s in‑court advocacy violated his free‑speech rights	American Express: regulation of practice of law is permissible and not a First Amendment violation	Corum: denial infringed husband’s free speech	Court held regulation targets conduct of practicing law to protect the public and any speech limitation is incidental; no free‑speech violation
Whether Corum preserved record for appeal (transcript)	American Express: record on appeal is adequate; appellant bears consequence of missing transcript	Corum: claimed she could not fully present argument after denial	Held appellant failed to provide transcript per N.D.R.App.P. 10(b); record shows court afforded reasonable opportunity and Corum declined to argue after denial

Wetzel v. Schlenvogt, 705 N.W.2d 836 (N.D. 2005) (conducting court proceedings on behalf of another constitutes the practice of law)
City of Fargo v. Stensland, 492 N.W.2d 591 (N.D. 1992) (discussing third‑party standing in First Amendment contexts)
State v. Niska, 380 N.W.2d 646 (N.D. 1986) (state regulation of law practice is within authority and incidental speech limitations do not violate free speech)