I disagree. Under either of the prevailing choice of law tests (query, Jack, whether you know anything about choice of law analyses), the location of the property (which is also presumably where the creditor is located) would be the appropriate state. And, since the MO SOL for breach of written contract is twice as long as the KS SOL, I would expect the creditor to push hard for the MO SOL. Note that the creditor certainly could sue in MO, which would make it even more likely that the court would apply the MO SOL, and the extra 5 years certainly would make it worthwhile to do even if the poster has no assets in MO.
I also disagree that merely making a payment is going to start the clock ticking.
Nevertheless, I'm not in KS.
I still would like to know if both the poster and the creditor really ignored this for 17 years as the original post implies. It's also not clear to me if a lawsuit has been filed. If so, the poster should consult with a local attorney.