In Hunt v. Richardson, 216 Ariz. 114, 120, 163 P.3d 1064, 1070 (App. 2007) the Court did not address whether circumstances there would permit a presumptive dedication of an easement for public use, see 216 Ariz. 114, P 14, 163 P.3d at 1069, but only whether a clear offer to dedicate had been adequately accepted, id., and whether the dedication served a proper public use. Id. P 17. Moreover, the court in Hunt described the easement as having been dedicated "to the general public," id. P 3, observing there was no dispute "that a valid offer to dedicate had been made." Id. P 14. Hunt therefore specifically does not address the precise issue before us--whether Turigliatto made a valid offer, or expressed the intent, to dedicate the road to the public.