Remittitur on Rehearing

Talk about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that an appellee is entitled to voluntary remittitur on rehearing.  In this case, the court of appeals originally issued an opinion in which it found the evidence insufficient to support the amount of damages.  Because liability was contested, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.  The appellee filed a motion for rehearing and requested a voluntary remittitur of a portion of the actual damages and prejudgment interest.  The court of appeals held that the "voluntary remittitur cures the reversible error and we accept it."  The court went on to vacate its judgment (but not its opinion) and enter a new judgment affirming the trial court's judgment as modified.

I wonder whether or not offering voluntary remittitur as an alternative in appellee's brief could ever be considered waiver.  There is some confusing authority as to when an appellee can present an argument for affirmance for the first time on rehearing.  While the better practice may be for appellees to offer the remittitur in their principal brief, this case supports the position that it's not too late on rehearing.  The court's opinion in Mesquite Elk's Lodge #2404 v. Shaikh can be found here

Question Regarding Mandate

To all you appellate gurus out there, here's an appellate procedure question: When does the court of appeals' mandate issue when the Texas Supreme Court has denied a petition for review and subsequently denied a motion for rehearing of the petition for review?

TRAP 18 controls issuance of the appellate mandate.  The timetable is based upon the steps a party is entitled to take after the court of appeals renders its judgment.  But there are no other steps to take after the Texas Supreme Court denies a motion for rehearing of a petition for review.  Or are there?  Should the mandate issue ten days after the denial of the motion for rehearing of the petition for review (because that's the amount of time added to the expiration of the other steps)?  Should its issuance be tied to the timetable for filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court?  What do you think?