L.T.

DISCUSSION

Ex-husband contends the trial court erred at the February 2025 hearing because it allowed ex-wife to play a recording of a private conversation between him and a third party (ex-wife’s recording). He contends he lacked sufficient notice of ex-wife’s recording and the trial court failed to determine its legality. We conclude ex-husband’s appeal of the February 2025 order is untimely. Ex-husband was personally served with that order at the February 2025 hearing (Fam. Code, § 6384, subd. (a)), so he was required to file an appeal by April 15, 2025. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(A).) This means his May 2025 notice of appeal of that order was untimely, and we have no power to entertain it. (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) Alternatively, ex-husband contends that the trial court should have considered his concerns with ex-wife’s recording at the April 2025 hearing. In his view, the legality of ex-wife’s recording and the surprising manner in which it was offered at the February 2025 hearing constituted “new facts” for purposes of section 533. We disagree. Section 533 authorizes a court to…