In the case of Shriver v. Woodbine Savings Bank, 1931, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a bank's foreclosure on a farm during wartime violated federal law. The Shrivers had taken out a mortgage loan from Woodbine Savings Bank to purchase their Iowa farm in 1917 but defaulted on payments due to financial hardships caused by World War I. Consequently, the bank foreclosed and sold it at auction where they bought it themselves for less than its value. The Shrivers sued claiming that under an act passed by Congress in 1918 (Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act), which protected servicemen from being disadvantaged legally because of their military service, such action was illegal as Mr Shriver served during WWI. However, the court ruled against them stating that this protection did not extend beyond active duty period hence could not be applied retrospectively or indefinitely after one’s service ended.

In the dissenting opinion for Shriver v. Woodbine Savings Bank, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a foreclosure sale despite allegations of fraud and collusion undermined fundamental principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that there was sufficient evidence presented by the plaintiff to warrant an investigation into potential fraudulent activity surrounding the foreclosure sale. They contended that ignoring such claims could potentially encourage unethical practices in future cases involving foreclosures or other property sales. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state law regarding redemption rights after a foreclosure sale, arguing instead for a more expansive understanding which would allow homeowners greater opportunity to reclaim their properties post-sale.