“Thus, under the plain language of the statute, it [remains] the plaintiffs responsibility to ensure the record is filed, either by filing it personally or requesting that the agency file it.” Vette v. Dir. of Revenue, 99 S.W.3d 563, 567 (Mo.App.2003). “This is consistent with cases that have interpreted the filing requirement under section 536.130, [RSMo 2000,] as these cases concerned plaintiffs who failed to timely file the record.” Id. There is nothing in this section which contradicts the requirement of section 536.070(4), RSMo 2000, that plaintiff or any interested party is to pay a reasonable cost to have a written transcript of the proceedings created from an audio recording. The fact remains that “[i]t is the plaintiff]⅛ duty to file th[e] record.” Dickens, 208 S.W.3d at 283 (<HOLDING>). Third, Appellant points this Court to Supreme
holding that the indigent defendant had to be provided with a transcript of an evidentiary hearing from his original trial so that he could file a new habeas petition holding that dismissal of a petition for review was proper where the appellant only filed an audio recording with the trial court instead of a written transcript holding the trial court was without authority to dismiss an appeal on the ground that the amount of the judgment required the appellant to file an application for discretionary review holding that trial court erred in granting petition for termination of parental rights based on noncompliance with case plan when case plan was not filed and approved by the court until seven months after petition for termination was filed holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo