Unfortunately you are wrong. See MPEP 201.11:
"There are several conditions for a later-filed application to receive the benefit of the filing date of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), or, provided the later-filed application is not a design application (see 35 U.S.C. 172), under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). The conditions are briefly summarized as follows...
(H) If the prior-filed application was filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, the prior-filed application must be entitled to a filing date and the basic filing fee of the prior-filed application must have been paid. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1)(ii) regarding a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), and see 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) regarding a benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)."
Quote from 37 C.F.R. 1.78(a)(1)(ii): "A nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States of America may claim an invention disclosed in one or more prior-filed copending nonprovisional applications or international applications designating the United States of America. In order for an application to claim the benefit of a prior-filed copending nonprovisional application or international application designating the United States of America, each prior-filed application must name as an inventor at least one inventor named in the later-filed application and disclose the named inventor's invention claimed in at least one claim of the later-filed application in the manner provided by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112. In addition, each prior-filed application must be...(ii) Entitled to a filing date as set forth in §1.53(b) or §1.53(d) and have paid therein the basic filing fee set forth in §1.16 within the pendency of the application."
Unfortunately, it looks like you might be screwed. The parent app was expressly abandoned, so it will be tough to revive (how do you argue that an express abandonment was unavoidable/unintentional?). And since the basic filing fee for the parent was not paid, the priority claim to it (under 120) is not valid.