Question
We live in a quiet residential street of private homes in a frum neighborhood. We, as well as many others, don't have a private garage but there is ample room for everyone to park one or two cars in front of his house and that is what people generally do. I need my car for work and I only return late from work. In order to avoid the strenuous task of cleaning away solidly packed snow and ice when I come home at night exhausted from work, I clean away the snow when it is fresh in the morning and then place chairs on the cleaned-up spot in order to inform people that I plan to use the spot at night and they should not park there. Most people respect my wishes. However, there are people who take advantage and remove the chairs and park there, forcing me to dig out an alternative parking spot. Can I force the one who parked there to vacate the spot that I cleared?
Answer
The first point we can make is that if there are other parking places available and the only reason he is parking his car in this spot is because you cleaned the spot, he is not acting properly since he is benefiting from the fruits of someone's labor against the will of the one who toiled to achieve the benefit, even though the worker is not the owner of the property that he improved.
A case in the Gemara where this principle is stated is where a fire broke out on Shabbos. The Mishna (Shabbos 120A) rules that the one in whose property the fire is raging may only save food that he needs for his own Shabbos meals. However, he may announce to others that they may save the rest of his food for themselves. He must state that they may save the food for themselves implying that they are not obligated to return the food to him because that would be tantamount to his saving more than three meals which is not permitted.
The Gemara says that one who has yiras shomayim will, nevertheless, return the food that he saved to its owner. The Gemara says that the reason is because one who fears Hashem does not wish to benefit from another person against that person's will. Rashi explains that the only reason the owner of the food relinquished possession is because he was forced to do so because the law does not allow him to save more. Thus, one who keeps the food is doing so against the true will of the original owner.
In your case too, the only reason you parted with your cleaned-up spot is because you had to give up the spot in order to go to work. Of course, this is not true when you vacate a spot on a non-snowy day since then the one who vacates his spot to go to work did nothing to benefit one who parks in the spot he vacated.
Another similar case is where a flood washed away a person's possessions and the owner despaired of recovering anything. Even though the law is that all the possessions are ownerless and a finder may legally keep them, the Ramo writes (259, 7) that the proper thing to do for one who finds the lost possessions is to return them to the original owner.
A ruling of the Chazon Ish in a different situation is most appropriate here. The Chazon Ish was asked what prohibition one violates when he does not wait in line for his turn. The Chazon Ish in Ma'asei Ish (1, page 147) said he is "poretz geder shel olam," meaning he acts in an uncivilized manner.
Similarly here, if the usual behavior is for people to park in front of their house and clean away the snow from there, one who grabs someone's cleaned spot is acting in a manner which is inconsistent with civilized behavior. We should note that the pasuk says: "Poreitz geder yishochenu nochosh", which means that one who acts in this manner will be bitten by a snake. This is a serious matter as can be seen from the Gemara (Shabbos 110A).
Your question was whether you have the right to force the one who parked in this spot to vacate the spot. In the cases we cited, even though the proper behavior is to return the goods to their original owner, nevertheless, the original owner cannot force the one who took possession to return the goods to him since legally they belong to the one who took them. Similarly in your case, while the proper thing is not to take the spot, nevertheless since the place that you cleared is public property you cannot force the one who parked there to vacate the space.
However, there is an issue as to whether you can force the one who parked there to pay you something since he benefited from your work. Since he did not hire you to work, he does not have to pay you as an employee. The only reason to pay you is as a yoreid-one who worked for someone but was not hired.
Since the laws of yoreid are very subtle, we have to search for a case in the Gemara or poskim where this type of situation was ruled upon.
We should first note that in general one who improves public property is not entitled to any payment for his work if he was not hired for the task. This is because he never had any hope of being reimbursed by the beneficiaries. Similarly, if you did not live in a frum neighborhood you would certainly not be entitled to any reimbursement since under secular law you are not entitled to reimbursement and therefore, you would not have any hope to be compensated.
In your situation you hoped to use the space yourself. If someone else takes the spot you can know who it is and can ask him for payment. Since he is frum we can assume he will pay you if according to Jewish law he is required to do so. Therefore, you probably did not despair of any compensation. Of course, this was not your intention but it was a possible outcome that was realized.
To decide which case in the literature is comparable to your situation, we have to identify the significant characteristics of your situation.
You cleared the snow for your own personal use and not in order to earn money for shoveling snow. However, you knew that someone else might come and park there. Furthermore, your action of shoveling the snow was necessary in order to use the space.
A similar case is discussed by the Rosh in a responsum that is cited by the Tur and ruled by the SA (375, 7). The Rosh was asked about improvements that were made to a dilapidated house that belonged to a person who left town for a few years. Someone noticed the vacant house and improved it by saving it from collapse and then he made further renovations and moved into the house. When the owner returned, he wanted to evict the squatter. The Rosh was asked if the owner is obligated to pay the squatter for the investments he made in the property. The Rosh ruled that he must pay the squatter before he can evict him.
Thus, we see that even though the squatter improved the house for his own use and not in order to be paid for his work, nevertheless, if the owner wishes to use the house, thereby benefiting from the squatter's improvements, he must pay for the improvements. The squatter was certainly aware that since the house did not belong to him, he could be evicted and someone else would benefit from the improvements he made. This is virtually the same as your situation since you too cleared the snow in order to benefit yourself, but you were certainly aware that someone else could park in that space before you came back.
A similar case that is discussed in the Gemara (BB 53B) concerns a convert who died without leaving heirs but left behind a piece of property which was rendered ownerless by his passing. In order to gain possession, one person built a house on the property. However, before he finished, someone else came and installed doors which rendered the house complete. This enabled the second person to acquire the deceased ger's property (chazoko) including the completed house.
The Oruch Hashulchan (CM 275, 23) rules that the one who installed the doors has to pay the one who built the house for his expenses including his labor since he is the one who ultimately benefited from the work even though the work was not done for him. Thus, again we see that even though someone improved a property for himself, if he was aware that someone else could ultimately benefit from his improvement he is entitled to reimbursement for his improvement.
Since when the Tur and Ramo cite this ruling they write that the owner was obligated to reimburse the squatter for his expenses you too can legitimately ask the one who used your spot to reimburse you for your expenses. (There is an issue why the owner was not obligated to pay more-see Mishpatei Yosher vol. 2 page 215.)
Even though you did not pay anyone to dig the spot, nevertheless Torah law recognizes work as an expense and the amount that the one who benefits has to pay is the amount that people normally charge for the job that you did. (See e.g., Rashi BM 118A.) Therefore, you could, through beis din, force the person who parked in the spot that you cleared to pay you for the time that you worked. He would have to pay you the amount that people generally charge to shovel snow for this amount of time.
In conclusion: The one who parked in the spot acted improperly but you cannot force him to vacate the spot. However, if you live in a religious neighborhood, you can demand that he pay you for the time you spent shoveling the snow.