remands resulting from omissions to the charge. The presumption an appellate court applies depends on the diligence of the parties at the charge and post-verdict stages. First, a party waives an entire theory of recovery or defense by not objecting to its omission from the charge. Tex.R. Civ. P. 279. When an incomplete theory is submitted without complaint, the parties are deemed to have waived a jury trial on the omitted issue and to have agreed to submit the issue to the trial court. See, e.g., Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Tucker, 806 S.W.2d 914, 925 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Wilson v. Remmel Cattle Co., 542 S.W.2d 938, 942 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1976, writ ref d n.r.e.); see also Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 148 Tex. 197, 222 S.W.2d 985, 991 (1949)(<HOLDING>). The rule provides that, at a party’s request,
holding party that failed to object to instruction conditioning submission of a jurys question on its answer to a question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding that petitioner who did not object to improperly conditioned submission waived right to a jury answer on the unanswered issue and the issue must be deemed as having been answered by the court in such manner as to support the judgment holding that a defendant waived a sentencing issue by failing to object in district court